EUROGAMES

This page intentionally left blank

EUROGAMES
The Design, Culture and
Play of Modern European
Board Games
Stewart Woods

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers

Jefferson, North Carolina, and London
 Squad Leader (SL)/Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) are trademarks
of Avalon Hill Games, Inc., a Hasbro affiliate. All rights reserved.
Wizards of the Coast and Magic: The Gathering are trademarks of
Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S. and other countries. Images
are used with permission of Wizards of the Coast LLC.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Woods, Stewart, ¡967–
Eurogames : the design, culture and play of modern
European board games / by Stewart Woods.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7864-6797-6
softcover : acid free paper
¡. Board games — Europe — History. 2. Board games —
Social aspects. I. Title.
GV1312.W66 2012
794 — dc23 2012025613

BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

© 2012 Stewart Woods. All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.

Front cover image by Simon Holding (courtesy Amigo Spiel).

Manufactured in the United States of America

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers

Box 6¡¡, Je›erson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com
 Table of Contents

Preface 1
Introduction 5

1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 15

2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960–1995 32
3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 46
4. From German Games to Eurogames 63
5. The Eurogame Genre 79
6. Hobby Gamers 120
7. The Pleasures of Play 146
8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 173
9. An Act Apart? 194

Conclusion 210
Chapter Notes 217
Bibliography 231
Index 257

v
When we discuss games, we are not discussing certain biologically inevitable
occurrences, though they may be ethologically probable. Rather, we are dis-
cussing multidimensional phenomena, varied in the cultural purpose to which
they are applied and inherently susceptible, for these varied reasons, to many
possible systems of conceptual analysis.—Sutton-Smith & Avedon, 1971a, p. 4
 Preface

Although I didn’t know it at the time, the first table game I can remember
playing could loosely be considered German in origin. My grandmother, a
necessarily frugal woman, would collect the boxes from Lyon’s individual fruit
pies and carefully cut out the images on the front of the boxes. When my
sister and I would visit her, these were used as the cards in a makeshift version
of the matching game known in England as Concentration. Cleverly, my grand-
mother’s design allowed for two variants — one where one simply matched
identical pies, and another where the pies had to be matched with an image
of the appropriate fruit. Of course, folk versions of this game had been around
since at least the sixteenth century, but it was William Hurter’s implementa-
tion, Memory, that cemented Ravensburger as the premier manufacturer of
games at the 1959 Nuremberg toy fair. What I find so endearing is that my
grandmother took the time to create her own version for us.
Like many adult gamers, I have played games in one form or another
throughout my life. My father taught me to play chess at an early age — though
I am still only a passable player — and some of the fondest memories of my
childhood are of playing mainstream board games such as Totopoly (Palmer
& Lee, 1938), Bermuda Triangle (1976), and Buccaneer (Bull, 1938). Later
still, I vividly recall my father — who had an abiding interest in the Napoleonic
Era — bringing home a copy of Waddington’s Campaign (1971). The game was
far more complex than those I was used to, and, to be honest, I don’t know
if we ever played a full game. But I do remember very clearly the words
inscribed along the box-edge: “For adults and older children.” This, along
with the beautiful board, delicate pieces and luxurious rulebook, hinted at
gaming that wasn’t just for kids — board games, it seemed, were also something
that grown-ups played.
As a teenager in the late 1970s a friend introduced me to Dungeons and
Dragons.1 Although like many I was initially baffled by the idea of a game
with no board, it wasn’t long before I fell under the spell of the game. By this
time complexity had ceased to be an issue, and I derived boundless pleasure

1
2 PREFACE

from poring over the arcane charts and lists of magical items that made up
the first Dungeon Master’s Guide. I found a small group of school friends to
play with, and for three years I was a passionate devotee. Through one par-
ticularly bleak English winter we completed the entirety of what are now
known as the Queen of the Spiders modules.2 We might even have completed
the Tomb of Horrors successfully, but I doubt it. At the height of my enthu-
siasm, at an early UK convention I was even lucky enough to have the honor
of playing across a table from the late Gary Gygax. Gaming had become a
significant part of my life.
Like many gamers, however, the preoccupations of my later teenage years
forced games to take a back seat for a period of time. I abandoned role-playing
for the most part, but still continued to visit the Hammersmith Games Work-
shop, where I discovered hobbyist titles such as Talisman,3 Cosmic Encounter4
and many others that I foisted upon friends with varying degrees of success.
Although I didn’t attend university at that time, many of my friends did, and
late night games of Talisman (with every expansion, of course), fuelled by a
variety of intoxicants, were the stuff of legend. If you haven’t played for five
straight hours only to fall into the “horrible black void,” then you haven’t
really played Talisman!
In later life I moved around a little but still managed to find a way to fit
games into my life whenever possible. Shortly after moving to Australia I
started a small gaming group. Being a little short of money, our source of
games consisted of an old battered copy of Risk5 and whatever we could find
at local charity shops. One of the problems with acquiring games in this way
was the tendency to come home with boxes of components that had, at some
point, become separated from the actual rules to the game. It was while search-
ing for rules to one particular game that I found the website boardgamegeek,
and before long was exposed to the variety of modern titles that are collectively
known as eurogames. Like many others, I was immediately taken by the design
style and actively sought out more and more games to enjoy with the growing
number of players who now found their way to the group. Before long my
collection of games was growing exponentially, and I had helped to found the
West Australian Boardgaming Association, a not-for-profit organization that
aims to support gaming in the community and raise awareness of the benefits
of playing games. Thus, when the time came for me to decide on a research
topic for my doctorate, the direction was obvious. The result of that research
is the book you now hold in your hands.
There is a reason for this lengthy preamble. I would like to think that
this book is informed by every game I have ever played, from fruit pie Memory
at my grandmother’s table to the game of Dominion6 I enjoyed with my son
last night. To understand games one has to play them, and I have been lucky
 Preface 3

enough in my life to have played games with a host of wonderful people.

Unfortunately, there is no way to thank them all individually. So if I’ve ever
played a game with you and you don’t find yourself in the following acknowl-
edgments, thank you. I hope you had fun.
And so to those who have helped more directly in bringing this book to
completion.
I would first like to thank my supervisor, Matthew Allen, for the aca-
demic rigor and repeated readings of my work while it was in thesis form. It
is a role that only a fellow gamer could have performed with such enthusiasm.
I am very much indebted to Mia Consalvo and Lewis Pulsipher, who were
both extremely kind in their appraisal of the original thesis, and who both
offered valuable feedback that I have endeavored to incorporate into this book.
I should like to thank those who agreed to be interviewed during this
research: Greg Aleknevicus, Michael Barnes, Eric Burgess, Derek Carver, Ted
Cheatham, Dominic Crapuchettes, Bruno Faidutti, Stephen Glenn, Joe
Huber, Mark Jackson, W. Eric Martin, Nicholas Sauer, Greg Schloesser, Zev
Shlasinger, Derk Solko, Ken Tidwell, Tom Vasel, Tom Werneck, and Steve
Zamborsky. Thank you also to Rudolf Rühle, Seth Owen and Bruce and
Sybille Whitehill for their correspondence and assistance. I would particularly
like to express my gratitude to Stuart Dagger, who went the extra mile in fur-
nishing me with details of early board gaming culture in the UK.
A general round of thanks goes out to all members of the boardgamegeek
community, especially those who took the time to respond to my survey. Aldie
and Derk have created a unique space for community to flourish on the Inter-
net — we are all very lucky to have such a wonderful home for our curious
little hobby.
Thanks to all the members of the West Australian Boardgaming Asso-
ciation with whom I have had the good fortune to play a game, in particular
Warren Adams, Renato Bruno, Richard Cheng, Terry Chilvers, Michael
O’Brien and Tim Tryhorn.
I would not have been able to write this book without the many people
who have attended “Thursday Night Games” over the years. Thank you all
for your company, camaraderie and competition. Extra thanks are due to the
regulars for their perpetual willingness to play yet another new game: Warren
Adams (again!), Tauel Harper, Monika Herold, Ulli Keck, Adrian McMillan,
Peter Ramm, David Savat, Tiffany Scotney and particularly Naveena Roden,
who was there from the start.
Throughout this process there have been many times when the last thing
I have wanted to do is talk about games, when all I have wanted is company
and a beer. In those moments I am indebted to the musketeers — John Boyle,
Ameeta Doyle, Paul Featherstone and Paul Roberts. Good friends all.
4 PREFACE

Thank you to my family, who have tolerated the increasingly intrusive

number of games that have found their way into our home. Thanks to Ali
for keeping me up-to-date on all the latest video game news while I was tem-
porarily sidetracked, to Louis for teaching me humility by beating me com-
fortably at any game I put between us, and to Julia, for keeping me sane and
providing inspiration.
Finally, there is one person for whom thanks on a page are not nearly
adequate. Barely a word of this book could have been written but for the con-
stant and unwavering intellectual, practical and emotional support of my
beautiful partner in the only game that really matters.
Thank you Helen.
 Introduction

The research and study of board games could be seen as a “dead science” for
many, especially now that a well-developed, digitally interactive media has
found “videogames” to be a very prolific market. There has not been extensive
research in the area of board games. Researchers have sporadically appeared
and disappeared, leaving a legacy that few have systematically followed.—
Ortega-Grimaldo, 2008, p. 34

For many people, board games are an anachronism. The idea of gathering
around a table to move pieces on a board conjures up visions of a bygone era,
one in which a sense of community flourished, families played together and
porch doors were always open. Although these same people will occasionally
play board games, typically with their children or at family gatherings, for
the most part these games are consigned to the same closet as typewriters and
rotary dial telephones, all victims of the inevitable redundancy that accom-
panies technological progress. For some people, however, board games are far
from being redundant. To them they are a hobby, a passion, even an obsession.
It is these people, the games they play, and their experience of that play that
is the subject of this book. Specifically, this book is a study of hobbyist gamers
who play a form of board game commonly referred to as eurogames.
For the purposes of this book I use the term board game to refer to any
game that requires a tabletop for play. However, many of the games described
herein are not played on a board as such. In fact, a significant number are
card games. Nevertheless, I have used the term board games to avoid the
clumsiness of repeated reference to “board and table games.” Where not indi-
cated in the text, the specific form of a game is noted in the reference list that
is found at the end of the book. The term “hobby games” is explained in
detail in the second chapter of this book. Briefly, it refers to a number of
specific game forms that have emerged over the last forty years and which
appeal to a particular audience. Examples are wargames, role-playing games,
collectible card games and the topic of this book — eurogames.

5
6 INTRODUCTION

This book examines the form of eurogames, the hobbyist culture that
surrounds them, and the way that hobbyists experience the play of such games.
Aside from the personal involvement I have already described, my interest in
this particular genre stems from two related observations. Firstly, eurogames
are the most recent form of game to be taken up en masse by gaming hobbyists.
Secondly, and this is perhaps the more interesting observation, eurogames
have emerged and grown in popularity almost concurrently with the rise of
digital games. While I am not suggesting that there is any causal relationship
between the rise of these two forms, I cannot help but wonder what it is about
eurogames that holds player interest at a time when the rich worlds of digital
play have become the dominant form of gaming in the (developed) world.
This is the first question that is central to this book — why do hobbyists play
eurogames?
The second question that informs this book stems from my own play of
games generally. As I approached this research, I found myself increasingly
fascinated by an apparent contradiction in the play of social games. Ostensibly,
a defining element of competitive play is the valorization of winning. Con-
sequently, players play to win. Yet my experience of playing in a variety of
contexts suggested to me that players were far more concerned with the social
outcome of the game than with any status that could be gained by winning.
Clearly then, there are two forces at work here — the desire to win and the
desire to have fun with other people. The question that arises from this obser-
vation is this: How do players balance the structure of competitive play with
the demands of an intimate social gathering?
The observation that eurogames are, by definition, a social experience
leads to my final research question. In 1938 Johan Huizinga famously described
play as “an act apart” (1950, p. 10), delimited by a “magic circle” that separates
the activity from “ordinary life” (p. 13). Roger Caillois too describes games
as “separate” (1958, p. 10), as does Chris Crawford when he proposes that games
are a “closed formal system” (1982, p. 7). As Juul notes, however, the bound-
aries between the game world and the real are not perfect but rather are “fuzzy
areas under constant negotiation” (2005, p. 36). My experience of game play
has suggested to me that a particular game can offer a vastly different expe-
rience depending upon the context in which it is played. Players — and the
interaction between them — can have a significant impact on the experience
of social play in a way that suggests to me that board game systems are any-
thing but closed. Thus, the final question I seek to answer in this book is this:
To what extent does the social context of the game encounter shape the expe-
rience of game play?
Given the questions I have identified here, I hope it is apparent why the
scope of this book is at once broad and highly specific. It is specific as it
 Introduction 7

focuses on a particular type of game and a very particular type of player.

Attempting to find answers to my questions in a way that could be broadly
applied to any form of game and/or player would require multiple volumes
and years of ethnographic and interdisciplinary research. By focusing on hob-
byists and eurogames specifically, the answers to these questions, while limited
in scope, are at least attainable.
At the same time, the ground covered by this book is broad. Looking at
such a specific subset of play activities requires a multidisciplinary approach.
For example, I cannot talk meaningfully about the eurogame form without
considering its history and relation to other board game forms. Nor can I talk
of hobbyists without considering the nature of subcultures and the perform-
ance of hobbyist culture. Thus, although the core focus of this book concerns
play, nothing but broad generalizations can be expected without consideration
of the specific game form, player identities and the culture of hobby gaming.
In order to fully explore each of these elements, an eclectic range of disciplines
and methods was required. In the course of this book I employ to some degree
aspects of history, cultural and subcultural studies, leisure studies, ludology
and play theory. It is only by adopting this multi-disciplinary approach that
I can hope to adequately answer the questions at the heart of this research.

The Study of Games

The last forty years or so have seen a significant change in the position
of games within popular culture. The rise of video games has been swift and
continual, to the point that the medium now rivals the commercial — and
arguably artistic — status of motion pictures. As video games have grown in
popularity among the broader population, they have also caught the attention
of scholars. Viewing games with a critical eye, they have examined the aes-
thetic, narrative and systemic elements of video games, documenting the evo-
lution of digital play and examining the nature of the game form with an
enthusiasm that has typified the rise of new media. The discipline that has
emerged from this interest has been termed ludology.
While modern ludology was originally imagined by Gonzalo Frasca as
merely a “discipline that studies game and play activities” (1999), so far the
emphasis has primarily been on video games. Nevertheless, a number of schol-
ars have adopted a more inclusive approach in their work that acknowledges
the commonalities between digital and non-digital games. Markku Eskelinen,
for example, argues that video games are “remediated games ... one species
among several within a general and transmedial game ecology” (2005, p. 93).1
Jesper Juul, an early proponent of the study of games as an independent form,
8 INTRODUCTION

has described a “classic game model” that seeks to encompass “at least a 5,000
year history of games” (2005, p. 23). Aki Järvinen, in his book Games Without
Frontiers, adopts a wide-ranging approach to the analysis of games that allows
for all forms of games, digital or otherwise (2009). Salen and Zimmerman’s
textbook, Rules of Play, is similarly inclusive of all game types (2004). These
are a few examples of writers and scholars whose analysis of games has
embraced the entirety of the form.
Unfortunately, despite these proclamations of inclusiveness, board games
appear to occupy the same position in the new ludology as they do in the
broader culture — small primitive ancestors of an evolved form. It is true that
a number of writers who acknowledge the commonality of game forms have
argued for the value of examining non-digital games, most notably Eskelinen
(2005, p. 10), designer Greg Costikyan (1998; 2011) and scholar Janet Murray
(2003). However, while a few researchers have gone on to offer such analysis,
they have typically discussed board games with a view to establishing con-
nections and/or design features that relate to video games.2 Thus, while the
study of games has accelerated in recent years, academic attention to the
specific area of board games remains relatively sparse.
The first serious research into sedentary games is that of ethnologist
Stewart Culin, who embarked on a number of research projects that sought
to collect and compare the wide variety of games that were found in disparate
cultures (1891; 1894; 1899; 1900; 1907). In terms of tabletop games specifically,
the first book that deals with a variety of examples is H. J. R. Murray’s A His-
tory of Board-Games Other Than Chess (1952). Murray analyzed a number of
abstract positional games, describing a schema by which they could be cate-
gorized. R. C. Bell adopted a similar approach, again limited to positional
games, in his Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations (1979). David
Parlett’s Oxford History of Board Games (1999) adapts both Murray and Bell’s
taxonomies, again with a strong focus on abstract positional games. Gobet,
de Voogt and Retschitzki’s Moves in Mind: The Psycholog y of Board Games
(2004) is another more recent addition to the literature, although its focus is
the cognitive and psychological aspects in the play of traditional abstract
games. This emphasis on traditional examples is also reflected in the work of
the International Society for Board Game Studies. Established in the early
1990s, the society holds a yearly colloquium that has occasionally included
papers on contemporary commercial games but is limited mostly to traditional
examples.
In terms of mass-market board games, Bruce Whitehill has done much
to document the evolution of games in the U.S. (1992; 2004). Most other
writers have been content to focus on specific proprietary games and/or man-
ufacturers, in many cases with a somewhat nostalgic tone.3 David Pritchard’s
 Introduction 9

edited collection The Games and Puzzles Book of Modern Board Games (1975)
is a notable exception, focusing as it does on a number of then-contemporary
proprietary games, including mainstream titles such as Monopoly (Darrow and
Magie, 1935) and Cluedo (Pratt, 1948), along with lesser known examples
such as Diplomacy (Calhamer, 1959) and Confrontation (1974).
Hobby games have been of only sporadic interest to games scholars, with
publications often arising from within the hobby rather than the academy.
Wargames are a good example of this, with a number of titles devoted to dis-
cussing the form from the perspective of enthusiasts.4 The more noteworthy
of these include Nicholas Palmer’s early Comprehensive Guide to Board
Wargaming (1977) and Best of Board Wargaming (1980), Jon Freeman’s Com-
plete Book of Wargames (1980), and Jim Dunnigan’s Complete Wargames Hand-
book (1980a). More recent critical analysis is found in the work of Matthew
Kirshenbaum (2009) and Patrick Crogan (2003).
In contrast, role-playing games have been a site of interest for scholars
since their inception. Undoubtedly the most well known work on the topic
is Gary Fine’s subcultural analysis of the early hobby, Shared Fantasy: Role
Playing Games as Social Worlds (1983). Daniel Mackay’s The Fantasy Role Play-
ing Game: A New Performance Art (2001) provides a more up-to-date per-
spective on the performative aspects of the genre; while recent works by
Jennifer Cover (2010) and Sarah Bowman (2010) address a variety of topics,
including the creation of narrative and the construction of identity, respec-
tively. The narrative aspects of role-playing games are also explored in a num-
ber of articles in Pat Harrigan and Noah Wardrup-Fruin’s series of collections
(2004; 2007; 2009).5 A particularly strong scholarly community has developed
around role-playing games in Scandinavia where the largest role-playing con-
vention moves between four countries, producing a book on the topic each
year.6 Overall, the study of role-playing games has remained particularly active
compared with other forms of hobby game.
One notable publication that manages to bridge the gap between video
games and hobby games is the collection Gaming as Culture: Essays on Reality,
Identity and Experience in Fantasy Games (Williams et al., 2006). Taking as
its theme fantasy games generally, the book contains a number of illuminating
articles on the play and culture of collectible card games.7 Other studies of
collectible card games include Mark Bordenet’s masters thesis on the identity
of gamers (2000), and Lenarcic and Mackay-Scollay’s (2005) discussion of
the positive social impact of playing Magic: The Gathering (Garfield, 1993).
On the topic of eurogames specifically, critical writings are few and far
between. Costikyan and Davidson et al.’s collection, Tabletop: Analogue Game
Design (2011), includes an eclectic mix of essays, some of which address exam-
ples from within the genre.8 Sybille Aminzadah examines the reasons for the
10 INTRODUCTION

popular success of Die Siedler von Catan (Teuber, 1995) through interviews
with German players (2004); while Stöckmann and Jahnke have written on
the general culture of gaming in Germany, as well as discussing the intersec-
tions between literature and German board games (2008a; 2008b).9 Finally,
Yehuda Berlinger’s presentation at the 2009 Board Game Colloquium
expressly addresses some of the identifying characteristics of the eurogame
genre (2009b).
As is apparent from this brief review, to date there are no substantial critical
works that address the topic of modern board games, much less eurogames. In
the words of Francisco Ortega-Grimaldo, the study of board games has remained
“a dead science” (2008, p. 34). Despite the resurgence of interest in games in
general, there has been surprisingly little attention paid to board games and the
play experiences they foster. This book aims in part to fill this gap, as well as
to contribute to broader understandings of the adult play of games.

Eurogames — Design, Culture and Play

This book consists of three parts, each of which seeks to address a par-
ticular element that contributes to the overall conclusions; these are the game
form, the hobbyist player and the experience of play that emerges from the
combination of these two.

Understanding the Games

The first part of this book is given over to the evolution of tabletop
hobby gaming, with a specific focus on the eurogame form. In order to discuss
eurogames and their position as a core genre of hobby gaming, this part of
the book examines the history and evolution of Anglo-American hobby games,
the nature of the eurogame genre, the geo-cultural site from which eurogames
emerged and the adoption of the form by hobbyists. To complement my own
research, I conducted interviews with a number of designers, publishers and
what might be termed “luminaries” within hobby gaming culture. My concern
here is a deeper understanding of eurogames as games, and their positioning
within the broader spectrum of hobby games. Of course, any examination of
games as a participatory form also obligates the researcher to experience the
play of them first hand (Aarseth, 2003; Lammes, 2007), and over the course
of this research I played close to 300 different board and table games in both
public and private venues. While the vast majority of these games fell within
the confines of the eurogame genre, I also sought to play many titles that have
directly or indirectly contributed to the evolution of hobby games. The expe-
 Introduction 11

rience of playing these games, together with the examination of the influences
upon their design and a historical review of the tabletop game as a cultural
activity, contribute to a situated understanding of the nature of eurogames.

Understanding the Players

The second part of this book consists of a discussion of board game hob-
byists and the broader culture of gaming that nurtures and sustains the hobby.
In order to understand the nature of the hobby community, I analyzed texts
produced by players as a meta-aspect of the hobby. Principle sources were dis-
cussions on the online forum boardgamegeek, as well as many other publications
that focus on hobby gaming generally and eurogames specifically. Examples
include amateur fanzines (e.g. Sumo, Counter), commercial print magazines
(Knucklebones, Games International), Internet mailing lists and discussion
groups (rec.games.board, Spielfrieks), along with personal websites, blogs and
the occasional academic article that touches upon the topic. Coupled with
this, I conducted interviews with a number of players and community figures.
In November 2007 I conducted an Internet-based survey that was made
available through the boardgamegeek website. While response rates to individual
questions varied, the average for the survey was approximately 650 responses.
The first part of the survey consisted entirely of quantitative questions designed
to extract demographic data along with basic information regarding playing
habits (frequency, location, etc.). The marriage of this quantitative data with
the analysis of discussion and commentary from within the hobby serves to
establish a coherent picture of players, along with their understandings of,
and performance within, hobby gaming culture.

Understanding the Play

The third and final part of this book concerns the experience of playing
games. As mentioned earlier, a number of key questions motivate this part of
the enquiry:

• How do players derive enjoyment from the play of eurogames?

• How do players balance the structure of competitive play with the
demands of an intimate social gathering?
• To what extent does the social context of the game encounter shape
the experience of game play?

In pursuit of answers to these questions, the second part of my survey

included a variety of open-ended questions designed to address the experience
12 INTRODUCTION

of play, with particular emphasis upon the issues outlined above. These survey
responses are denoted in this book by the prefix R, followed by a number
(e.g., R567). The format of the survey provided results that could not have
been gathered through observation.10 As a part of the overall enquiry, these
responses informed the generation of a number of conclusions that were sup-
ported through informal participant observation.

Tying It All Together — Informal

Participant Observation
Participant observation is of particular utility in disciplines like game studies
where the object of study is emergent, incompletely understood, and thus
unpredictable.— Boellstorff, 2006, p. 32

Throughout this book my questions, research and analysis are informed

by my own participation in the gaming hobby and my personal history of
playing games. There is, of course, a lengthy history within the broader area
of social sciences of ethnographic research by researchers who are “inside” the
particular subculture they are examining.11 In the case of some participatory
cultures, it has been suggested that one can only appreciate the aesthetics and
meanings of a particular activity if one is actively involved.12 Participant obser-
vation as a research strategy has its origins in the work of anthropologists such
as Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas, who introduced the idea that the
researcher must have daily and extended contact with the subjects of his
research in order to grasp the situational knowledge that is held by a given
culture (Nader, 1996). In the case of this particular book, participant obser-
vation has informed the enquiry on three levels: private, local and global.
For the last thirteen years I have been part of a weekly gaming gathering.
In the last ten years this has been held primarily in my own home. The types
of games played have varied and have included mass-market and hobbyist
games. Since I embarked on the research for this book, there have been a far
greater number of hobby games played, particularly eurogames. On a local
community level, since 2007 I have been the chairperson of the West Australian
Boardgaming Association (WABA), a non-profit organization that promotes
hobby board games in the Western Australian community.13 The organization
has approximately 100 members, with meets regularly attracting upwards of
fifty players. As well as providing regular monthly venues for hobby gamers,
WABA has been involved with promoting gaming within the community via
outreach programs in local libraries and schools. More recently, I have taken
up a position on the committee of Boardgames Australia, a national organi-
zation that promotes the social benefits of board games.14 The organization
 Introduction 13

has also sought to recognize quality games through the establishment of

national awards. Finally, on a global level, I have been an active member of
the boardgamegeek online community since 2005.
Through these three avenues I have been able to gain a far greater insight
into the topic of this research than I would have otherwise. However, it should
be stressed that the nature of this participant observation has been entirely
informal. Consequently, while there are very few explicit references to par-
ticipant observation within this book, the experience of playing games with
others and being a part of the hobby gaming community underlies many of
the assertions and observations made here. Particularly in the later discussions
of the social context of game play and the way players manage this, my personal
observations could be said to inhabit the space between every line. Where I
draw upon the anonymous qualitative data provided by surveying, at each
turn the interpretation of the data is informed by these personal experiences.
As I discuss later in this book, there is far more to understanding the gaming
hobby than merely playing games. Immersion in this unique subculture is the
only way to understand the hobbyist approach to games and the pleasure that
participants derive from playing them. This is the most important goal of this
book.
This page intentionally left blank
 1

A Brief Introduction
to Hobby Games

We might think of games as charming historical artifacts, but they are also
telling reflections of social values and mores.— Brown, 2004

Eurogames are the most recent variety of what have come to be termed
“hobby games.” While this term might seem to be self-explanatory, it has
come to denote a variety of games that are differentiated from other forms by
their appeal to a particular segment of the population over the last half-cen-
tury. Leisure theorist Richard Stebbins describes the play of competitive games
generally as one of four forms of “serious leisure,” including in his description
many sports, along with sedentary games such as Bridge, Shuffleboard and
computer games (1992, pp. 13–14). Yet, while we might describe the active
engagement with such pastimes as constituting a hobby, they are rarely, if
ever, described as hobby games. Since the focus of this book is a particular
form of hobby board game, a clear explanation of the games under discussion
is necessary. Moreover, since the term hobby board game has emerged from
within the hobby itself, the most effective way to clarify its meaning is to
describe the various forms of hobby games that have appeared over the last
fifty years.
To this end I begin here by discussing the principal ways in which tra-
ditional board games have been categorized in the past, identifying the lim-
itations of these schemata in the context of contemporary board game designs.
As an alternative, I propose that the contemporary board game market can
be divided into three categories: traditional games, mass-market games and
hobby games. Hobby games can be further delineated into four principal gen-
res, those being wargames, role-playing games, collectible card games and
eurogames. In discussing the first three of these genres in this chapter, I not
only wish to document the nature and variety of hobby games that have
emerged over the last fifty years, but also to provide a clearer idea of why it

15
16 EUROGAMES

is that the term hobby games has been applied to these forms, and indeed
why they are generally grouped together by members of the community and
industry.

Beyond the Abstract— Categorizing Board

and Table Games
The typical approach to categorizing board games in the past has been
to define game types by either the central mechanics of play or by the game
goals (Murray, 1952; Bell, 1979; Parlett, 1999). Insofar as writers have tended
to limit themselves to traditional board games such as Chess, Mancala and
Backgammon, this approach has functioned well. The most recent example is
found in David Parlett’s authoritative study The Oxford History of Board Games
(1999), wherein the analysis of games is largely restricted to what the author
terms “positional games”:
The defining feature of these is not that they are played on boards, but that
they are played on a pattern of significant markings, such as an array of che-
quered squares or a network of lines and points, whose purpose is to define
the movements and positions of the pieces in relation to one another [p. 6].
While this restriction works adequately within the context of Parlett’s
work, it necessarily excludes a significant number of modern commercial
games. Although Parlett suggests that such games might feature positional
elements, he observes that contemporary proprietary games tend to involve
play that is centered “above the board, in the minds of the players themselves”
(p. 7). Perhaps as a consequence of this shift, Parlett devotes little space to
the evolution of contemporary board games beyond a cursory mention of
selected titles and thus, as hobbyist writer Mike Siggins notes, omits the sig-
nificant developments in board game design that have occurred over the last
forty years (2000).
One problem here is that where traditional abstract games can be effec-
tively jostled into a framework through the examination of similar mechanics
and/or goals, the increased complexity and variety of modern commercial
games often sees them weaving several mechanics together in ways that defy
such simple categorization. Indeed, a taxonomy based purely upon core
mechanics and/or goals would almost certainly prove both unwieldy and
unproductive in approaching the wide variety of games that have appeared
in the marketplace over the last half-century. Moreover, it is important to
recognize that, unlike traditional games, modern games are a manufactured
commodity, designed and published at a specific time in history, and produced
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 17

for a particular market and for essentially commercial reasons. The nature of
such games is that they are played by particular groups of people and thus
lend themselves to the development of cultural formations which reflect both
the moment in which they are produced and the identity and recreational
choices of the players. This historical, cultural and economic context cannot
be ignored in considering any categorization. With this in mind, a more useful
approach is a simple schema that distinguishes between three principal types
of board game: the classical game, the mass-market game and the hobby
game.
Broadly speaking, classical games refers to those non-proprietary games
that have been passed down from antiquity and whose authorship is presumed
to emerge from multiple iterative changes over time. Mass-market games refers
to those commercial titles that are produced and sold in large numbers year
after year, and which constitute the common perception of commercial board
games. Finally, hobby games are those games that are not targeted towards the
general mass market but to a specific group who can be termed hobby gamers.
As I note above, many players of classic games, such as Chess, or proprietary
mass market games, such as Scrabble (Butts, 1948), might describe themselves
as participating in a hobby. However, in the sense that I use the term here,
hobby games constitute a subsection of the broader market that tends to
attract those with a specific interest in a particular form of commercial game.
A brief discussion of each of these forms will serve to clarify these distinc-
tions.

Classical Games
Classical games are readily identifiable as those games to which no author
is attributed and of which no company or organization claims ownership.
Although some classical games have identifiable themes, they are most com-
monly abstract. In categorizing these public domain or “folk” games, Parlett
(1999) draws on the work of H. J. R. Murray (1952) and R. C. Bell (1979) in
describing four types of game, as identified by the game goals: race games, in
which players traverse a track in an attempt to be first to finish (e.g., Nyout,
Pachisi); space games, in which players manipulate the position of pieces to
achieve prescribed alignments, make connections, or traverse the board (e.g.,
Noughts and Crosses, Twixt1 and Halma, respectively); chase games, in which
asymmetrical starting positions and goals cast players in the role of pursuer
and pursued (e.g., Hnefatafl, Fox & Geese); and games of displacement, where
symmetrically equipped players attempt to capture and eliminate each other’s
pieces (e.g., Chess, Draughts). While these games are not the focus of this
18 EUROGAMES

book, it is worth noting that they are perhaps the closest relatives of the mod-
ern eurogames discussed here, in that it is the game system that holds the
attention of the game player rather than the thematic elements that are so
central to both mass-market games and many hobby game forms.

Mass-Market Games
Mass-market games are those proprietary games that have come to dom-
inate the shelves of large toy retailers and with which the activity of board gam-
ing is commonly associated by the general public. Mass-market games tend to
be one of three types. The first of these are the more successful of the numerous
family games that were produced during the 19th and 20th century.2 Examples
such as Scrabble, Monopoly (Darrow and Magie, 1935), The Game of Life
(Klamer, 1960), Clue (Pratt, 1948) and Candyland (Abbott, 1949) have continued
to sell well long after their initial publication. Over time the rules to these games
have become a part of the Western cultural lexicon and are easily transferred
from one generation to the next. A result of this is that the shelves of large retail
outlets are typically dominated by games that were, in many cases, designed
more than half a century ago. While these games might be termed “classic” in
the sense that they occupy a central position in cultural understandings of board
and table games, they have, arguably, acquired this status largely through a
combination of manufactured nostalgia and effective marketing.
The second form of mass-market board game is that of the “party game”
whose popularity exploded following the success of Trivial Pursuit in the early
1980s (Haney and Abbot, 1981). Typically, such games are akin to Victorian-
era parlor games in that they tend to focus on performance and social inter-
action as a primary goal in play. Thus they generally have simple rules and
accommodate large groups of players. Examples of successful titles include
Pictionary (Angel, 1985), Outburst! (Hersch, 1986), Cranium (Alexander and
Tait, 1998) and Taboo (Hersch, 1989).
The final type of game that has become ubiquitous in the mass-market
is the licensed game, whose origins can largely be traced to the emergence of
television in the 1950s. The arrival of television had a significant impact on
the way leisure time was spent in the average home. Games manufacturers
were swift to embrace this new medium as a source of inspiration for a swathe
of titles which Parlett terms “pulp games” (1999, p. 347). Although games
manufacturers had often looked to current trends and fads for inspiration,
the arrival of television had a far more dramatic impact on the games business
than did earlier cultural trends, since each new television show brought with
it another opportunity to repackage familiar mechanics with a new theme:
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 19

During the ’50s, many game companies ... began to acquire more and more
licenses to television shows. Businesses that once hoped to sell a game that
would be a staple in the line for decades were now making products that
would be obsolete as soon as the program on which they were based was no
longer on the air. More attention was given to the name and character on the
box than to the product inside [Whitehill, 1997].
Generally, these titles are of such socio-cultural specificity that they are usually
forgotten as quickly as the shows, and later movies, which inspire them. Exam-
ples of these at the time of writing are Dexter: The Board Game (2010), Glee
Board Game (2010), Gossip Girl Never Have I Ever Game (2009) and Dancing
with the Stars Board Game (2008). The mechanics of these types of games are
typically derivative and uninspired, prompting Parlett to evaluate them as
“essentially trivial, ephemeral, mind-numbing, and ultimately [of a] soul
destroying degree of worthlessness” (1999, p. 7).
A common and notable hybrid of these three forms stems from the growth
in licensing and crossover branding. Where previously the larger game manu-
facturers might have commissioned new, if unoriginal, designs to accompany
ephemeral trends, there is a tendency now to merely weave them together with
existing game licenses. A quick survey of toy giant Hasbro’s range of board games
in 2010 reveals Monopoly—Spiderman 3 Edition (2007), Monopoly—SpongeBob
Squarepants Edition (2005), Monopoly—Transformers Collector’s Edition (2007),
The Game of Life—Pirates of the Caribbean (2004), The Game of Life—Simpson’s
Edition (2004), Candyland—Winnie the Pooh Edition (2008) and Candyland—
Dora the Explorer Edition (2005). In most cases the resulting hybrid retains all
the same mechanical elements as the original game, the branding merely appear-
ing as window-dressing in order to attract the targeted market.
The contemporary mass-market games industry is essentially built upon
the repackaging of 20th century proprietary games, party games, and a few
original titles that appear yearly to satisfy fans of particular media licenses.
As designer and publisher Mike Petty notes, the larger game companies such
as Hasbro and Mattel now have little motivation to explore the potential of
new game styles (2006) and are reluctant to even consider game submissions
from outside of a small pool of developers (Verbeten, 2007, p. 31). As industry
commentator and designer Greg Costikyan eloquently affirms, “Hasbro is fat
and happy and basically doesn’t give a fuck about innovation” (1998).3

Hobby Games
Where the rise of television was to prove a challenge for larger toy man-
ufacturers that eventually resulted in a dearth of novel game play ideas, the
20 EUROGAMES

hobby gaming industry and the culture surrounding it emerged and flourished
in the latter half of the 20th century. Indeed, contrary to the impression that
might be gathered from the shelves of large retailers, game design has expe-
rienced significant advances over the last five decades. Entirely new genres of
game have emerged and evolved outside of the mass-market, so much so that
the landscape of contemporary board and table games is radically different
than it was in the 1950s when the larger companies seemingly decided that
there were enough good games to satisfy the average consumer indefinitely.
In the final chapter of The Oxford History of Board Games Parlett briefly
discusses contemporary commercial games, and in doing so, expands his tax-
onomy to describe the genre of “specialist games”:
These may be characterized as games of skill and strategy appealing to players
broadly describable as adult, serious, educated, intelligent. Many of these
share the associated features of classic games, from which category they are
only excluded by their appeal to a specialist section of the market [1999, p.
347].
Parlett is referring here to a subsection of gaming enthusiasts that emerged in
the latter half of the 20th century and whose interests lay largely outside of
both classical abstract games and those that dominate the mass-market. The
forms of games these enthusiasts play are more commonly referred to as hobby
games.

Hobby Game Genres

Although hobby games share a commonality in their appeal to particular
segments of the market, there are a number of recognizable forms that have
emerged over the last half-century that can be broadly considered genres. The
use of the term genre can be problematic, as it is the source of much critical
debate, particularly in the fields of literature and film studies. In the original
sense, genre refers to the classification of texts into discrete types through an
observation of similar traits within a type. However, as film theorist Robert
Stam notes, discussion of genre tends to draw on a wide variety of criteria
that often appear in conflict and/or intersect with one another (2000, p. 14).
Furthermore, genre divisions, even when seemingly well established, are inher-
ently subject to revision as new texts emerge and the boundaries between
groups shift.
Defining genre boundaries has proven as problematic in game studies as
it has in other areas, leading to a variety of approaches having been adopted
to describe the similarities and differences between games. As described earlier,
studies of classical games, such as those of Murray, Bell and Parlett, tend to
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 21

favor a categorization based upon game goals. However, in his discussion of

card games, Parlett refers to “game families”4 with similarities based upon a
combination of mechanics (2000). In Dice Games Properly Explained, designer
Reiner Knizia breaks games down into those primarily determined by luck,
those where luck can be mitigated, those of strategy and those of bluffing —
a mix of mechanics and other shared traits (1999d).
Extending the discussion to video games, a number of scholars have
attempted to establish a framework for understanding game genres, with vary-
ing degrees of success. David Myers, in his early discussion of genre in home
computer games (1990), asks, “Upon what is a computer game’s ‘feel’ based?”
(p. 294), a question which leads him to conclude that the nature of the inter-
activity between the player and the game is a fundamental characteristic. Sim-
ilarly, Mark J. P. Wolf argues that theme is unsuitable as a foundation for the
classification of games, as a thematic similarity does not reflect the diversity
of player experience (2002, p. 115).5 Wolf ’s schema for genre in video games
draws on a number of criteria, with an emphasis on the “dominant charac-
teristics of the interactive experience and the games’ goals and objective” (p.
260). The result is a list of genres that effectively replicates the confusion and
cross-purposes that Stam observes in film studies.6
As game scholar Espen Aarseth observes, the problem with discussions
of genre and video games lies in the fact that the video game is a widely diver-
gent form (2004), an observation that is equally valid for other forms of game.
Indeed, Myers recognizes the variety of influences that may affect the con-
struction of genres within video games, citing, among other factors, a partic-
ular aesthetic appeal to designers and commercial patterns that see successful
forms revisited (2003, p. 97).
In the case of hobby games, it is not surprising to find that even within
this small area, informal categories have emerged based upon a variety of cri-
teria. Gaming writer and hobbyist Greg Aleknevicus describes the current
hobby gaming market as being composed of “four pillars”: wargames, role-
playing games, collectible card games and eurogames (2008). While collectible
card games and role-playing games are loosely defined by a mechanic, in the
case of wargames it is the theme that largely serves as nominator. However,
the fact that a number of collectible card games utilize a theme of war reflects
the intersections that are so common in discussion of genre boundaries.7 Con-
sequently, as with other media, it is more productive to think of genre as a
series of conventions that provide a form of communicative shorthand, thus
allowing authors to count on audiences having certain expectations and
knowledge. In the context of game studies, players — who have a particular
understanding of these conventions — formulate folksonomies that reflect their
response to particular game forms (Myers, 1990, p. 289). For this reason
22 EUROGAMES

Aleknevicus’ schema is useful in summarizing the principal forms of hobby

games prior to the emergence of the eurogame.

Wargaming
Wargaming, the earliest form of hobby gaming to emerge, has its origins
in early simulation games employed by the military.8 Evolving through the
early 20th century largely through miniature-based games,9 the hobby was
experiencing a resurgence of interest in the 1950s when American Charles S.
Roberts designed the first modern board wargame, Tactics (1954).10 In 1958,
after selling the initial 2000 copies, and with growing interest in the game,
Roberts founded Avalon Hill, a company that went on to develop most of the
dominant principles of pre-electronic wargaming in a successful series of
games depicting specific conflicts.11
The success of Avalon Hill, and the enthusiastic response to the conflict
simulations the company was producing, prompted other designers to follow
its example. Along with Avalon Hill, companies such as Simulation Publica-
tions Incorporated (SPI), Game Designer’s Workshop (GDW) and Simula-
tions Design Corporation (SDC) ushered in “the golden age of wargaming”
in the 1970s (Dunnigan, 2000). Of these companies, SPI was by far the most
significant, producing the magazine Strateg y & Tactics, a publication that set
the benchmark for community contribution and feedback.12 A typical board
wargame of this period used a hexagonal grid representing a variety of terrain
features, units represented by cardboard tokens printed with the abilities of
each, and sophisticated probability-based tables for determining the outcomes
of encounters based upon a combination of statistical data and designer’s intu-
ition. In contrast with mass-market games, the designer’s name would often
appear on the packaging; indeed, the term “game designer” was first coined
by Redmond Simonsen at SPI (Costikyan, 2006).
At the same time as Roberts had been working on his fledgling designs,
Alan Calhamer, a Harvard student of European history, was devising and refin-
ing a game based upon diplomatic machinations in Europe during the lead-
up to the First World War. The game, Diplomacy (1959), was entirely different
to Roberts’ strategic simulations, relying on the interpersonal negotiating skills
of multiple players in the resolution of relatively simplistic board-based conflict
mechanics. Following unsuccessful approaches to major game companies, Cal-
hamer initially produced a run of 500 copies of the game in 1959, and it has
been in print near-continuously since then (Sharpe, 1978). Although not,
strictly speaking, a wargame, Diplomacy has become a hobby unto itself, with
postal play and later play-by-email proving particularly successful.
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 23

Squad Leader— the largest selling wargame to date (image by Wesley Williams,
courtesy Multiman Publishing).

Avalon Hill’s success continued throughout the 1970s. PanzerBlitz (Dun-

nigan, 1970), considered the first tactical-level wargame, introduced a geo-
morphic map that enabled players to reconfigure sections of the game board
in order to play out a variety of scenarios. This innovation was later expanded
and refined in the popular simulation Squad Leader (Hill, 1977), the best sell-
ing wargame to date (Costikyan, 1996) and one that spawned its own sub-
culture of enthusiasts.13 The period also saw the birth of “monster games,”
whose name reflected the epic scenarios they were intended to simulate (Palmer,
1980, p. 19). GDW’s Drang Nach Osten (Chadwick and Banner, 1973) was
among the first of this genre, requiring at least 50 hours for a complete cam-
paign (Owen, 1990); while SPI’s War in Europe (Dunnigan, 1976a), along
with its siblings War in the East (Simonsen and Dunnigan, 1974) and War in
the West (Dunnigan, 1976b), provided material for playing a campaign game
lasting over 100 hours (Palmer, 1980, p. 171).
In 1975, Avalon Hill worked with a local wargaming club in Baltimore
to establish the first Origins convention, which was later run in conjunction
with SPI in order to promote the hobby. A time of prolific output, the late
1970s saw Avalon Hill producing five new wargames a year, with SPI managing
24 EUROGAMES

a remarkable average of 27 titles a year (Owen, 1990).14 Peaking in 1980, the

combined sales of historical wargames for that year amounted to 2.2 million
units (Dunnigan, 1997).
Within a few years, however, the growing popularity of role-playing
games and the advent of the personal computer began to have a considerable
impact on the wargaming hobby (Owen, 1990). A number of companies who
had built their reputation on wargaming began to diversify into role-playing,
while others failed to compete against the explosive growth of the new hobby.
At the same time, the personal computer offered an attractive alternative to
the complex manual bookkeeping required in many games. Although initially
hampered by issues of platform compatibility and processing power, the rise
of computer-based wargames increasingly saw players pursuing the hobby in
a digital form.
In 1982, Tactical Studies Rules (TSR), now a sizeable company due to
the success of the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons (Gygax and Arne-
son, 1974a), purchased SPI. Although TSR re-released some of SPI’s more
successful games,15 sales were unimpressive in comparison with the company’s
substantial line of role-playing publications (Owen, 1990). In the same year,
toy giant Milton Bradley released Broadsides and Boarding Parties (Harris,
1982),16 the first in a series of simplified wargames with high production values
that, with the exception of Lawrence Harris’ Axis and Allies (1981), failed to
make any serious headway with mainstream audiences.17 Following this trend,
in the late 1980s TSR, Avalon Hill and GDW also began to produce simpler
games, with mixed results.18 Avalon Hill released Advanced Squad Leader
(Greenwood, 1985) in 1985, which quickly gathered a significant following
despite being a simpler game than the original.
Many reasons have been suggested for why the board wargaming hobby
declined so dramatically throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Greg Costikyan
(1996) attributes the collapse to TSR, who, he claims, “shot wargaming in
the head” by failing to honor subscriptions to SPI’s Strateg y & Tactics, which
had become a lynchpin of the wargaming community. Dunnigan, however,
suggests that it was largely computer gaming that was central to the collapse:
One can make the case that wargame sales are better than ever, if one simply
changes the definition of a wargame. That’s what the market has done in
response to market demands. But that’s like saying that historical fiction
should be reflagged as history books because few people will buy and read real
history books anymore. No, the problem is that historical wargames were
always a small market because they emphasized information and analysis at
the expense of entertainment. Any gamer who was not a wargamer immedi-
ately saw that. Now that computers have made it possible for many more peo-
ple to play wargames, you should not be surprised that most of them want to
be entertained, not put through a training course [2000].
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 25

Although the conflict simulation branch of the hobby is still active today,
wargaming has not again achieved the popularity of the 1960s and 1970s.
While miniature gaming retains its attraction for younger hobbyists, princi-
pally through the efforts of Games Workshop and their Warhammer line of
fantasy and science fiction games, the larger hobby has experienced a significant
decline from its heyday.
As Dunnigan explains, wargame designers typically attempt to simulate
specific moments in history, using detailed information to revisit pivotal
conflicts. Although many forms of game are simulative to some degree,
wargames took this to an extreme, utilizing complex rulesets and laboriously
researched combat resolution tables (CRTs) to approximate the possible out-
comes of any given event with a combination of dice and their associated
probabilities. This element, which gamers refer to as “chrome.” tends to result
in extremely long and detailed rulesets. Indeed, the term “Avalon-ese” has
become a way of describing rulesets that feature large numbers of exceptions
in order to allow for every special circumstance that might arise during the
game. In the 1970s and 1980s, when the wargame model expanded to encom-
pass alternative futures, science fiction and fantasy, the notion that such games
were simulations persisted, as did the attendant complexity. A consequence
of this was that the play of such games was restricted to those who had both
the patience and disposition to wade through lengthy rulebooks. The com-
plexity of these systems meant that these were not games for the average per-
son — these were “gamers’ games.” Players were not, generally speaking, casual
participants but rather enthusiastic members of a growing hobby gaming cul-
ture.

Role-Playing Games (RPGs)

In 1970 wargamer Gary Gygax was working on a medieval miniatures
game based upon a rules system begun by a friend, Jeff Perren. The system,
Chainmail, was published in 1971 by Guidon Games (Gygax and Perren, 1971)
and included supplemental rules that covered “dragons, heroes, magic swords
and spells” (“Gary Gygax Interview,” 2000). One of the players of Gygax’s
system was Dave Arneson, a fellow wargaming enthusiast who had become
somewhat bored with the conventions of the genre and was beginning to
experiment with different styles of play in order to enliven the experience.19
Initially, he introduced the notion of establishing an ongoing campaign in a
medieval setting where each player controlled the leader of a small group.
After further experimentation, Arneson introduced magic to his games and
had his players each represent an individual adventurer in a collaborative
26 EUROGAMES

attempt to infiltrate an enemy castle in what he has since described as the first
fantasy role-playing game (Fine, 1983, p. 13). Before long, Gygax was exposed
to Arneson’s idea of one-player-per-character, and the pair spent the early
1970s working on a ruleset that would become Dungeons and Dragons (1974a),
the first commercially produced role-playing game (RPG). Despite Gygax’s
feelings that the game would only appeal to a limited number of hobbyists,20
the popularity of Dungeons and Dragons grew at an impressive rate, and the
name of the game would become synonymous with the role-playing hobby.
Generally speaking, in role-playing games players take on the role of
individual characters whose defining traits and abilities are specified by the
ruleset, but whose goals and motivations are changeable and dependent upon
the narrative of the game. A game master relates the unfolding events as they
happen to players, describing the game world and conveying to the players
the consequences of their actions. Typical of the game structure is the accu-
mulation of experience in varying forms that affects the player character’s sta-
tistics and therefore their relationship with the world as defined by the ruleset.
Generally, early role-playing games were played in a series of ongoing ses-
sions — a campaign — with individual play sessions forming a small part of a
larger adventure.
During the late 1970s, the success of Dungeons and Dragons resulted in
a flood of role-playing games that sought to emulate the success of the orig-
inal.21 Few literary or cinematic settings were not subject to the role-playing
treatment.22 Furthermore, as role-playing evolved, the early emphasis on com-
bat inherited from the hobby’s wargaming roots gave way to more imaginative
and theatrical approaches.23 Where previously game referees were content to
build large, self-contained environments for players to explore and subjugate,
emphasizing the combative elements of the game, the move away from this
approach resulted in a focus on narrative as the principal player motivator
(Mason, 2004, p. 6). Consequently, many games abandoned the dense rulesets
that had characterized early games in favor of a more free-form approach.
By the mid–1980s it seemed that there were few fictional realms left
untouched by role-playing. Steve Jackson’s Generic Universal Role Playing Sys-
tem (GURPS) (1986) attempted to simplify the needs of players who wished
to explore different environments by presenting a unified system that could
theoretically be applied to any fictional setting. The approach was successful,
spawning countless source books that covered a large variety of both generic
and licensed properties.
Throughout the 1990s the implementation of role-playing games on the
personal computer had a significant impact on the tabletop role-playing indus-
try. Although arguably requiring little (if any) in the way of actual role-playing,
the basic systems of character advancement and probability-based event out-
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 27

comes proved ideal for the medium. Significantly, however, the solitary play
also dispensed with the social element that was so integral to tabletop games:
Paper RPGs, unlike electronic ones, are social affairs; players get together peri-
odically to play, and spend at least as much time roleplaying for their friends
as they do trying to maximize their character’s effectiveness in a purely struc-
tural context. It’s common for a group of friends to get together for years,
playing the same characters in the game gameworld with the same gamemas-
ter. In the process, they establish long character histories, flesh out the world
background, and so on. For long term players, the stories they create can be as
emotionally powerful and personally meaningful as anything you find in a
novel or a movie — perhaps more so because the players are personally
involved in their creation [Costikyan, 2007, p. 9].

Notably, as the popularity of computer role-playing grew, so too did the

emphasis on collaborative and social storytelling in tabletop play.24 In 1991,
White Wolf, a U.S.–based gaming magazine/fanzine, merged with the small
but influential games company Lion Rampant to form White Wolf Inc., a
gaming company whose most significant contribution to the hobby was the
“storyteller system,” which would provide the foundation for a number of
games. Most famously, Vampire: The Masquerade (Rein-Hagen, 1991), a mod-
ern gothic horror game that established a complex political background of
fictional clans and bloodlines, pushed the genre even further towards the
immersive storytelling model (Appelcline, 2007). Following the success of
Vampire, White Wolf released a series of games set in the same universe,25
“The World of Darkness,” and expanded the series to incorporate perhaps the
only commercially successful live action role-playing game, Mind’s Eye Theatre:
The Masquerade (Rein-Hagen et al., 1993).26
The arrival of the collectible card game Magic: The Gathering (Garfield,
1993) had a significant impact on the role-playing industry, channeling many
gamers away from the hobby (De Rosa, 1998). In response, many RPG com-
panies turned their attentions to producing collectible card games in the hopes
of emulating the success of Magic (Appelcline, 2006b). Consequently, by the
turn of the century it was largely independent developers who were producing
the most innovative role-playing games, with many capitalizing on the Internet
as a medium for the distribution of pen and paper games. At the same time,
critical interest in role-playing games contributed to the development of more
sophisticated understandings of the genre, which in turn led to more nuanced
designs. While familiar titles such as Dungeons and Dragons continued to be
revised and updated for a new audience, the most interesting designs moved
away from what Ron Edwards terms “gamism” and towards a narrative
approach (2001).27 Although role-playing had been the subject of serious aca-
demic attention as early as 1983 (Fine, 1983), works such as those of Edwards
28 EUROGAMES

(2001) and Daniel Mackay (2001), along with a particularly vibrant Scandi-
navian community dedicated to the study of LARPs and role-playing games
generally, have contributed to a deeper understanding of the nature of role-
playing as both a game and a performative art.28

Collectible Card Games (CCGs)

In 1993, game designer Richard Garfield was attempting to sell his latest
design, a board game entitled Roborally,29 to game companies in the U.S. Peter
Adkison, founder of the relatively new role-playing company Wizards of the
Coast, was interested but had concerns over the high production costs of a
board game. While working with Garfield on development of Roborally, Adki-
son expressed his interest in a cheaper, more portable game; Garfield showed
him Manaclash, a design he had been working on for a few years which com-
bined elements of baseball card trading with a game (Appelcline, 2006b;
Weisman, 2007). The concept itself was relatively simple: a two-player card
game which could be infinitely expanded through the purchase of further
packs, driven by an enormous variety of cards and a scaling of the rarity of
individual cards. Evolving into Magic: The Gathering, the game was released
in August 1993 and would transform hobby gaming almost overnight.
There is no way to overstate how much CCGs changed the RPG industry
back in 1993 and 1994. Gamers were lining up at stores on release day, pur-
chasing the new sets by the $100 case. There was so much money in the fad
that new game stores popped up just to get in on the booming industry. Print
runs kept increasing, but pre-orders were locked in months ahead of each
release, and Wizards couldn’t afford to print much above them, so retailers
and distributors were constantly limited in their purchases, as their desires
typically had grown by release date [Appelcline, 2006b].
Role-playing and strategy gamers alike were drawn into the complex
world that emerged from the ongoing release of expansion sets to the game.
Most significantly, these ongoing releases and the collectability of cards led
to a whole new metagame, that of deck-building. As players became experi-
enced with differing play styles and new cards, the metagame of creating effec-
tive decks for play provided an extra level of enjoyment to the hobby. Although
precise figures are not available, it is known that Wizards of the Coast sold
over one billion magic cards within two years of the game’s release (Giles,
1995). The company actively fostered a community of players through the
provision of tournaments in hobby gaming stores and in 1994 they established
a specialist magazine, The Duellist, to accompany the growth of the hobby.
In 1996 a professional competitive tour circuit, which offered prizes of up to
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 29

$40,000, was established.

Magic: The Gathering was the first, and undoubtedly the most successful,
of a genre that would come to be known as collectible card games (CCGs).
As the phenomenal success of the game quickly became apparent, other pub-
lishers were quick to jump on the trend. Among the first wave of these were
Decipher’s Star Trek: The Next Generation Customizable Card Game (Braunlich
et al., 1994), TSR’s Spellfire (1994), and Wizards of the Coast’s follow up offer-
ing, also co-designed by Garfield, Jyhad (Garfield et al., 1994).30 By late 1995
the market was awash with CCGs, but ultimately none would surpass the
popularity of Magic. Among the more notable of these early releases were the
kung fu/science fiction–themed Shadowfist (Laws and Garcia, 1995),31 the
Tolkien-inspired Middle Earth CCG (Charlton, 1995) and arguably the most
well-respected CCG after Magic, Legend of the Five Rings (Seay et al., 1995).
The year 1995 also saw the release of TSR’s Dragon Dice (Smith, 1995), a col-
lectible dice game that foreshadowed the emergence of collectible miniatures
a few years later.
The stream of CCGs being released continued through the latter half of
the 1990s. While some companies chose to follow the example of Magic and
develop games based upon their own thematic mythos,32 others licensed or
expanded existing brands in attempts to leverage the popularity of the worlds

Richard Garfield’s Magic: The Gathering spawned an entire genre of games (image
by Simon Holding. © Wizards of the Coast LLC. Image used with permission).
30 EUROGAMES

they portrayed.33 By the late 1990s the market was beginning to cool, with
most attractive licenses having been subjected to the CCG treatment at some
stage. The year 1999 brought the North American release of the first serious
competitor to Magic in the unlikely form of a trading card game based upon
a Japanese children’s media franchise, Pokémon (1999). Although still a fully-
fledged CCG, Pokémon was squarely aimed at a younger demographic, and
its popularity was soon emulated by another Japanese entry to the market,
Yu-Gi-Oh! (Takahashi, 2002).
New CCGs continue to be released, and although the market is certainly
not as active as in the mid–1990s, notable and innovative titles do occasionally
appear. More recently, collectible card games have made the leap into the vir-
tual with the implementation of online versions. The first entirely online CCG
was Chron X (Moromisato et al., 1997), developed by Darkened Studios and
released in 1997. Subsequently, many successful CCGs have been re-imple-
mented in online versions, including Magic and out-of-print games such as
Decipher’s Star Wars (Darcy et al., 1995). Another offshoot of collectible card
games has been collectible miniatures. Blending the marketing model of CCGs
with the physicality of miniature wargaming, the first to be released was Mage
Knight (Weisman and Barrett, 2000). Subsequent successful releases include
Heroclix (Weisman et al., 2002), Axis and Allies Miniatures (Tweet et al.,
2005), Heroscape (Van Ness et al., 2004) and Star Wars Miniatures (Grubb et
al., 2004). Perhaps the most inclusive of all these games is the Dungeons and
Dragons Miniatures game (Elias et al., 2003), which simultaneously aims to
appeal to players of wargames, role-playing and collectible games.

Communities of Play
James Lowder, editor of the essay collection Hobby Games: The 100 Best
(2007a), describes a hobby game as one “that is designed in such a way that
players can devote a lot of time to its strategy or the community surrounding
it” (2007b). While many adults regularly play classical games, or occasionally
mass-market games within a family environment, hobby games form a par-
ticular focus for a specific group, where discussion of the game form and par-
ticipation in the community are often as important in a player’s life as the
play of the games themselves.
Whereas it has been suggested that adult play tends towards the norma-
tive in terms of its fixed rules (Paglieri, 2005), gaming hobbyists from the
outset displayed a clear tendency to experiment with rulesets, expecting input
into the kinds of games they wanted to play and experimenting with the form
as a part of their involvement (Costikyan, 1996). Thus, as early wargaming
 1. A Brief Introduction to Hobby Games 31

created possibilities for adult recreational gaming, it also led to the formation
of the first communities of hobby gamers (Dunnigan, 1997). Typically edu-
cated western males, those who were involved in the industry were enthusiastic
participants in the hobby themselves, a characteristic reflected in the general
culture of the community today, where the line between consumer and pro-
ducer is blurred by the ongoing communication between the two groups and
the proliferation of amateur content (Winkler, 2006, p. 14).
Situating the player as a character in an imagined environment with
emergent, flexible goals, role-playing redefined understandings of games and
their potential as a creative and expressive art. Role-playing brought large
numbers of new participants into the gaming hobby, many of whom would
go on to actively contribute to the evolution of the genre. In contrast to role-
playing, collectible card games offered well-defined win and loss conditions,
achieved through careful resource management and strategic play. At the same
time, these games encouraged the formation of community through the
metagames of deck-building and tournaments. Indeed, collectible card games
that were discontinued by their original publishers remain the focus of active
player communities (Bisz, 2009). Each of these genres has contributed to the
shape of contemporary hobby gaming, influencing the growth of the cul-
ture — and the industry that supports it — prior to the emergence of eurogames.
 2

Anglo–American Hobby
Board Games 1960 –1995

The games that defined hobby gaming through the latter half of the 20th
century typically focused on direct conflict as the key source of interaction
within play. While wargames were explicitly modeled after historical or imag-
ined armed conflicts, role-playing introduced the notion of the player versus
an environment. Although later manifestations of role-playing shifted away
from this adversarial relationship between the player and the game world, for
a considerable period this model was the dominant form within the genre.
Collectible card games, although largely abandoning the emphasis on
verisimilitude that characterized wargames and early role-playing, typically
pitted one player against another in a similar model of direct conflict. While
these three genres were critical in establishing and nurturing a market for
adult games, and, more significantly, an active community of gamers, in terms
of design none can be considered a direct predecessor to modern eurogames.
Concurrent with the growth of these particular game forms, the broader
field of board game design continued to evolve in ways that would later be
reflected in the form of eurogames. Between 1960 and 1995 a wide variety of
strategy board games aimed at the adult hobbyist market were published in
the USA and Great Britain. Although none of these games fit comfortably into
any of the hobby gaming genres described in the previous chapter, they were
typically distributed through the same retail channels and played by a similar
audience. As designers developed games outside the confines of the mass-market,
innovative titles increasingly pushed the boundaries of board game design, and
in doing so, laid some of the groundwork for the European-style designs that
were to follow. In some cases the influence of these games on the eurogame
genre is quite apparent, while in others it is perhaps only tenuous. Overall a
significant number of the games published during this period display a ten-
dency to de-emphasize positional mechanics in favor of play that draws on
interpersonal skills and reasoning. More importantly, the titles discussed in this

32
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 33

chapter are indicative of a gradual shift away from direct conflict in both
mechanic and theme, a characteristic that would later serve to define modern
eurogames.

The Origins of Modern Eurogames — 3M Games

In 1962 the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) was
exploring ways to increase revenues when employees hit upon the idea of pro-
ducing a line of adult strategy games (Babinsack, 2007). Due to their popu-
larity and subsequent influence on game designers in Germany, these games
are particularly important in understanding the nature of eurogames. Among
the designers whose work was recognized and published by the newly founded
games division of 3M were Americans Alex Randolph and Sid Sackson. In
the early 1960s Sackson was involved in a New York gaming group with a
focus on designing and playtesting their own inventions (Sackson, 1969),
while Randolph had recently abandoned the advertising industry in favor of
a career as a game developer (Wolf, 1988). As well as producing a number of
traditional abstract titles (e.g., Backgammon, Chess, Go), 3M enlisted Sackson
and Randolph to create new games for their “bookshelf ” series, so named
because of the presentation method which fitted the components into a
vertically-oriented book-sized box.1
The pair were among the first designers to be commissioned by 3M, and
their work marked a significant turning point in the history of board games:
All of the games published prior to this, and many more to follow, could be
considered first generation board games. These first generation games followed
a rigid format where turns alternated in a strict pattern, there was little player
interaction, a minimal number of choices per turn and, with rare exceptions,
no real need for players to remain at the table when it was not their turn to
play [Shapiro, 2003].
Among the very first of these second-generation designs was Sackson’s Acquire
(1962), a business and investment–themed game of tile placement and spec-
ulation. Alongside Acquire, the 3M bookshelf range also included Randolph’s
abstract strategy game Twixt (1961), Rick Onanian’s trivia game Facts in Five
(1967), considered the precursor of category trivia games such as Scattergories
(1988), and Sackson’s game of supply and demand, Executive Decision (1971).2
Beside the highly successful bookshelf series, 3M also went on to produce a
series of “gametes” and a range of sports games and paper games until 1975
when the line was sold to Avalon Hill. Filis Frederick observes that at the
peak of 3M’s success the company was receiving between 400 and 600 game
submissions a year (as cited in Babinsack, 2007).
34 EUROGAMES

3M began marketing games in Europe in 1966, employing Eugen Oker,

an influential writer whose critiques of games had appeared in the respected
national newspaper Die Zeit as its German editor (Oker, 2004; Whitehill, 2004).
Although both Randolph and Sackson would go on to produce many more
successful designs, their influence on game design in Germany would see their
names far more recognized in that country than in the USA.3 Recalling his
first trip to the Essen games fair in the 1990s, gaming writer Stuart Dagger
observed:
One of the things that struck me was the esteem in which both Sid Sackson
and Alex Randolph were held and the position in a place of honour on the
second-hand games stalls of the 3M games from twenty years earlier. These
were the games that clearly occupied pride of place in many collections. And
of course the reverence for the designers went with that for the games, since
most of those 3M titles were from one or other of those two [2008].
Acquire has since been recognized as the seed of the German style of
game design (Shapiro, 2003; Eggert, 2005).4 As Dave Shapiro writes:
The significance and impact of Acquire cannot be overstated. It was the first of
what 40 years later would be deemed German style games. An entire genre of
gaming would grow from this seed. Sid Sackson was the founding father of
the German style game [2003].

An early Schmidt Spiele edition of Sid Sackson’s Acquire (image by Simon Hold-
ing, courtesy Amigo Spiele).
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 35

In essence, Acquire had most of the hallmarks that would later come to typify
the eurogame: an emphasis on abstracted system over theme, a relatively short
and clear ruleset, manageable playing time, and a lack of player elimination.
The possible reasons for the strong influence of Sackson and Randolph’s work
will be discussed a little later. For the moment it is sufficient to acknowledge
that at a point in the early 1970s designers in Germany began taking cues
from their work that would eventually result in an identifiable game design
style.

Board Game Design 1970 –1980 5

In Britain an active board gaming community was forming in the early
1970s, aided in part by the first British magazine dedicated to gaming, Games
and Puzzles. Founded in 1972 by South African Graeme Levin, the magazine
covered traditional abstract games, proprietary games such as Scrabble and
Monopoly, and wargaming. Importantly, Games and Puzzles was available in
high-street newsagents and contributed to the growth of a healthy play-by-
email Diplomacy community that established itself under the banner of the
British Diplomacy Society. Games and Puzzles was also the principal avenue
through which gamers in the U.K. could read reviews of recent releases. Gen-
erally, these reviews were of games from established British companies such
as Waddingtons and Spears, along with wargame releases from the U.S.-based
Avalon Hill and the occasional 3M game. Issue 4 of Games and Puzzles marked
the first mention of the London shop and mail order business Games Guild
(also owned by Levin), which, although only promoting British companies
initially, would later feature 3M games prominently among their American
offerings (Dagger, 2008). By 1976 the hobby had grown sufficiently to support
the first annual games convention in Birmingham. The event was held annu-
ally, moving through a variety of locations before returning to Birmingham
as ManorCon (Dagger, 2007). Both the existence of dedicated magazines and
the establishment of regular conventions proved invaluable as building blocks
for the hobby community.
Interestingly, at the same time as the hobby was expanding, innovation
among the larger companies was declining:
The two giants in the British board games industry were Waddington and
Spears, and they no longer had the creative edge that they had had earlier. In
Britain — and I think this is also true of America — the rise of television had
seen a decline in the playing of board games. Families no longer played games
together to anything like the extent they had in the fifties and before, and
board games were now just things you bought as Christmas presents for the
kids. Faced with this declining market, the two companies fell back on their
36 EUROGAMES

perennial best-sellers —Monopoly, Cluedo and Scrabble. There were new, not
particularly inspired, games for the under 10s, but hardly anything of sub-
stance for an older market [Dagger, 2008].
The void left as the established companies neglected the adult market
was soon filled by a number of smaller businesses offering strategy titles with-
out the emphasis on conflict simulation that drove the American hobby.
Among the first of these companies was Intellect Games whose early titles
included the British political game Election (1972), the first edition of David
Parlett’s race game Hare and Tortoise (1973), and the two-player tile-placement
abstract Thoughtwave (1974), designed by Eric Solomon.6 Another Solomon
design of the period, the innovative Sigma File (1973),7 featured pieces rep-
resenting spies that could be moved by any player but whose allegiance was
secretly determined.
The U.K. games company Ariel published a number of successful games
during the 1970s, of which the most significant was the War of the Roses sim-
ulation by Andrew McNeil, Kingmaker (1974).8 Although ostensibly a game
of military conflict, Kingmaker involved political machinations, a simulated
parliament and random events that dramatically affected the course of play.
The rights to the game were quickly acquired by Avalon Hill in the USA,
where it was significantly revised by designers Don Greenwood and Mick Uhl
in correspondence with McNeil (McNeil, 1979). In terms of wargaming, King-
maker was “the first imported game to take the American hobby by storm”
(“Avalon Hill General Index,” 1980). Other notable games from Ariel included
the Robert Abbott two-player abstract Epaminondas (1975), the nuclear war
simulation Confrontation (1974), and the roll-and-move business game Fortune
(Fenwick, 1979).
Perhaps the biggest influence on German board game design from the
U.K. came from the games of Francis Tresham. Tresham’s first game, 1829
(1974), offered players a simulation of railway expansion in southern England
that simultaneously incorporated development and stock holding. A watershed
in board game design, 1829 spawned an entire sub-genre of games known as
the 18XX series, within which numerous designers have developed scores of
scenarios and rulesets (often self-published) which see the development of
railways in locations as diverse as Trinidad ( Jacobi, 1996), Malaysia (Lau,
2006) and Namibia (Ohley and Romoth, 2004). The most successful itera-
tions, however, have generally been produced by established companies and
include the Avalon Hill–commissioned 1830 (Tresham, 1986) and Mayfair
Games’ 1870 (Dixon, 1994).
While signs of innovation were apparent in a number of U.K. games,
developments in the USA also prefigured some of the features that would later
appear in eurogames. In terms of American games of this period, one stands
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 37

out as being remarkably innovative in terms of mechanics, James St. Laurent’s

Crude: The Oil Game (1974). A game of oil exploration and production, Crude
was originally released in the U.S. in 1974, although the game failed to achieve
success (Rossney, 1994). Interestingly, the game was subsequently re-issued
without the designer’s knowledge by German publisher Hexagames as
McMulti. The principal innovation in the game is the mechanic whereby a
single production die roll benefits all players, a mechanism that would appear
to great acclaim some 20 years later in the highly successful Die Siedler von
Catan. Other notable American non-wargames of the 1970s include James
Koplow’s game of negotiation and mob violence, Organized Crime (1974),
and another game which draws on negotiation skills reminiscent of Diplomacy,
Vincent Tsao’s Junta (1978).
Innovation in board game design was not only the preserve of small inde-
pendent publishers. Despite the company’s reputation, Avalon Hill had never
been solely concerned with wargames. Indeed, some of the company’s earliest
games included titles such as the courtroom simulation Verdict (Roberts et
al., 1959a) and the two-player railroad game Dispatcher (Roberts, 1958b).
Along with the acquisition and re-issue of a number of 3M games and a large
line of sports simulations, titles such as Dunnigan’s Outdoor Survival (1972),
one of the company’s best-selling games,9 and Rail Baron (Erickson and Erick-
son Jr., 1977), another early rail-themed game, established Avalon Hill more
generally as a publisher of adult strategy games in the 1970s.
During this period several other American wargame companies, spurred
on by the growing popularity of media science fiction and fantasy, began to
produce games without the emphasis on verisimilitude that had given birth
to the hobby. Writing in 1980, Nicholas Palmer discussed the emergence of
these games:
Unlike the boom in monster-sized games, which peaked in 1978 as prices
began to outrun demand, the fashion in SF games looks quite durable, since
players are quite happy with colorful but inexpensive designs which can be
played in a few hours. Sooner or later we can expect to see a few monster SF
games, but in general the preference seems to be for more light-hearted games
than are usual in combat simulation [1980, p. 10].
SPI were among the first of the wargame companies to leverage the
popularity of science fiction, with designs such as the galactic scale hex-
and-counter game Starforce (Simonsen, 1974),10 the Star Wars–derived Freedom
in the Galaxy (Butterfield and Barasch, 1979) and Greg Costikyan’s well-
regarded The Creature That Ate Sheboygan (1979), which sees one player
controlling a 1950s-inspired monster and the other the civilians, police and
army in the eponymous town.11 Fantasy too provided inspiration for SPI’s
designers, initially in a trilogy of games based upon Tolkein’s Lord of the
38 EUROGAMES

Rings,12 and later with titles such as Swords and Sorcery (Costikyan, 1978) and
Dragonslayer (Simonsen and Hessel, 1981).
A similar shift at Avalon Hill also resulted in a number of notable games.
The two most enduring titles of the period are the fantasy games Titan (McAl-
lister and Trampier, 1980) and Magic Realm (Hamblen, 1978). Titan, essen-
tially a multiplayer tactical wargame, deals with the mustering of an army of
mythological creatures and their subsequent engagement in combat across
varying terrains. Interestingly, the mustering of forces occurs on one shared
master board, while combat takes place on a number of “battleland” boards.
Titan remains popular and was reprinted by Valley Games in late 2008. Magic
Realm was Avalon Hill’s first foray into role-playing, albeit in a somewhat
complex board game format. The game uses a modular hex board in the cre-
ation of a variable landscape, and, although initially hampered by poorly pre-
sented rules, it retains a small cult following.
Metagaming Concepts, another significant force in the gaming hobby
during the late 1970s and early 1980s were most notable for the creation and
popularization of microgames — small cheap games packaged in plastic bags
(and, later, small boxes).13 Of the many games released in this format, none
was as successful as Ogre ( Jackson, 1977b). An asymmetric simulation broadly
reminiscent of the Hnefatafl family of abstract games, Ogre pitches an enor-
mous armored vehicle against a small force of ground troops. Ogre was later
reprinted by designer Steve Jackson’s eponymous company and still garners
respect among hobby gamers.14 The concept of the microgame was later appro-
priated by a number of companies, including SPI, TSR and Task Force Games.
Although many of the titles of this era draw largely on the tropes of
wargaming in their mechanics, a notable distinction in terms of gameplay
was the increasing number of games that allowed more than two players, a
trait that tends to lead to the presence of diplomatic negotiation within the
game:
These [multi-player games] seem to have a definite popularity edge in the SF
contest, perhaps because the “fun” side of wargaming is dominant in both SF
simulation and political skullduggery [Palmer, 1980, p. 18].

Exemplary of this development, and by far the most significant game of this
period, is Eon’s Cosmic Encounter.15 Described by co-designer Peter Olotka as
having been conceived as “the anti–Risk” (2010, p. 285), Cosmic Encounter
begins with the simple premise of several players adopting the role of an alien
race, each having control of a system of planets. Throughout the course of
the game, each player attempts to establish bases on planets belonging to the
other players through a series of randomly designated attacks. By enlisting
the assistance of other players, both the attacker and defender are able to bol-
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 39

ster forces to aid in their goals. What makes the game so unique, however, is
the introduction of variable player powers, an element that dramatically over-
turned one of the principal tenets of game design:
The impact of Cosmic Encounter simply cannot be ignored. The original con-
cept it introduced has permeated every genre of gaming from war and card
games to video games. It is a single, simple idea: every player is allowed to
break a rule in a unique manner. Prior to Cosmic Encounter every player in
every game played by the same rules set; equality was assured. With Cosmic
Encounter every player began with an identical set up and a card that allowed
them to “break” one of the rules of the game. This was revolutionary [Shapiro,
2003].
Cosmic Encounter has been cited by a number of designers as an early influence
and has had a notable effect on the evolution of board games generally.16
Beyond the innovation of player powers, the game brought to the fore diplo-
matic negotiations around and above the actual game board, with players
jostling for the opportunity to be involved in individual battles. Cosmic
Encounter has spawned no less than nine expansions and three English lan-
guage reprints,17 while numerous fan-created variants add still more replaya-
bility to the game.
Shortly after the initial success of Cosmic Encounter, Avalon Hill com-

Fantasy Flight Games’ 2008 re-issue of Cosmic Encounter (image by Simon Hold-
ing, courtesy Fantasy Flight Games).
40 EUROGAMES

missioned the Eon team to develop a game set in the fictional world of Frank
Herbert’s Dune books. Like Cosmic Encounter, Dune (Eberle et al., 1979)
offered each player the opportunity to play as a unique faction in a fictional
world, with each assigned variable powers, effectively reinforcing the relation-
ship to the original novels. Eon’s design team of Bill Eberle, Jack Kittredge
and Peter Olotka have achieved a somewhat legendary status within the gam-
ing community, further enhanced by later innovative titles such as the
evolution-themed Quirks (1980) and Borderlands (1982), a complex mix of
resource management, trade and diplomacy which introduced the idea of
rotating the start player in each round, a mechanic borrowed from card games
that remains commonplace in European designs (Levy, 1999).

Board Game Design 1980 –1995

The period preceding the widespread emergence of eurogames saw con-
tinuing innovation in terms of both the theme and mechanics of hobby board
games. In 1980 Francis Tresham’s company Hartland Trefoil released his most
influential game, Civilization. Tracking 8,000 years of history and requiring
at least six hours for a full game, Civilization was unique at the time of pub-
lication for many reasons. Most importantly, the thematic emphasis of this
game tracing the development of ancient civilizations was not primarily upon
conflict but cultural and technological advances. These advances were repre-
sented through a “technology tree,” an innovative system that would subse-
quently appear in numerous computer and tabletop games. This is not to say
that military conflicts were not present in the game, but that internal devel-
opment, trade and diplomacy more often provided the keys to an effective
victory. Even more so than Tresham’s railroad development designs, Civiliza-
tion is considered an iconic game among hobbyists. Infamously, a thematically
identical computer game borrowed heavily from the original design and has
gone on to spawn numerous sequels.18 Civilization was reprinted by Avalon
Hill in 1981, with expansions subsequently designed by Tresham (1982; 1988)
and designers at Avalon Hill (Harper et al., 1991).
Another noteworthy company of the 1980s in the U.K. was Gibson
Games. Established in 1903 as The International Card Co., in 1911 Gibson
Games had been responsible for a pre-cursor to Stratego (Mogendorff, 1959)
called Dover Patrol (Gibson, 1911).19 The company largely licensed designs
from other companies in the 1970s, but in the early 1980s, following a change
of management, it turned to publishing independent designs. The most
notable of these was American Lewis Pulsipher’s multiplayer game of civiliza-
tion development and warfare, Britannia (1986). A highly influential design,
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 41

Francis Tresham’s Civilization (image by Simon Holding).

Britannia spawned a number of derivative titles and was republished by Avalon

Hill in 1987 and by Fantasy Flight Games in 2006.20
The popularity of role-playing also served, to a limited extent, as a foun-
dation for the development of a variety of interesting board game titles. Var-
ious designers and publishers had been attempting to replicate some facets
of the role-playing experience in the form of a board game since at least
1975, when TSR produced Dungeon! (Gray et al., 1975), a highly simplified
adaptation of a basic Dungeons and Dragons scenario that dispensed with a
game master, pitting players against each other in a race to accumulate treas-
ure.21
Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone of Games Workshop produced a num-
ber of games by British and American designers, as well as working with other
companies in reprinting existing games for the U.K. market. Among the first
of the company’s original titles was Pulsipher’s Valley of the Four Winds (1980),
a two-player fantasy wargame based upon a short story and a line of Games
Workshop miniatures. Designer Derek Carver recalls his first steps into pub-
lished game design with the company:
Because there was a lack of new games coming onto the adult boardgaming
market I started to invent and make my own. And because at the time Ian
Livingstone and Steve Jackson ... used to join us at times they got to know
these games. Games Workshop was a very small outfit in those days. However,
42 EUROGAMES

they then decided to publish their own games and being familiar with my
games three of them got into the Games Workshop range [2008].
Carver’s first game was originally a Dungeons and Dragons–inspired roll-and-
move game which had players collecting gems, but since Games Workshop
had recently acquired the rights to produce a game based upon the BBC
television series Doctor Who (Carver, 2007), a theme change resulted in Doctor
Who: The Game of Time and Space (Carver, 1980). It was Carver’s Warrior
Knights (1985b) and Blood Royale (1987), however, that were to have more
long-lasting appeal. A game of negotiation and conflict in the medieval
period, Warrior Knights’ enduring popularity is evidenced by a 2006 re-
implementation (Faidutti et al., 2006).22 Blood Royale 23 is a lengthy political
negotiation game with elements of role-playing that Carver had intended to
be a game system similar to that found in role-playing games.
The most successful of Games Workshop’s forays into board game pub-
lishing, however, was another role-playing hybrid, Talisman (Harris, 1983).
Designer Robert Harris originally conceived Talisman as a way of allowing
players to enjoy the role-playing experience without the intensive preparation
typically associated with the form:
I had it in mind to come up with a way we could have all the excitement of a
roleplaying adventure without all the hard work of creating characters and
drawing maps. At the back of my mind was a game I had designed while still
a pupil at Morgan Academy in Dundee. It was called “Rectocracy” and
involved each player taking on the character of one of the teachers. You moved
around the board, gradually working your way towards the centre, where you
would try to make yourself Rector (headmaster/principal) of the school. I had
a notion that I could use a similar layout to make a fantasy adventure game
[Harris, 2007].
Essentially a simple roll-and-move game, many gamers both in the U.S. and
the U.K. remember Talisman fondly, perhaps due to the way it blended the
familiar themes of fantasy roleplay with mechanics reminiscent of mainstream
family games. The first imprint of the game spawned six expansions24 and
three subsequent editions, the most recent by Fantasy Flight Games in 2008.
As well as these original designs, Games Workshop also licensed the Swedish
design Drakborgen (Bonds and Glimne, 1985), a competitive dungeon-delving
game with superficial similarities to TSR’s Dungeon!, retitled DungeonQuest
for the English-speaking market.
The company also produced versions of Cosmic Encounter and Quirks in
collaboration with U.S.–Based Eon, and a version of David Watts’ 1973 design
Railways Rivals. Railway Rivals is generally considered the first modern railway
game and has spawned a number of similar titles in the U.S., most notably
the Mayfair series of crayon rail games. Beginning in 1980 with Empire Builder
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 43

(Bromley and Fawcett, 1980), the Mayfair rails games, like Railway Rivals,
allowed players to create their own train routes by drawing on a specially lam-
inated board. Unlike the share-driven model of Tresham’s 18XX games, the
emphasis in the crayon rails series is that of moving goods efficiently around
a network. The series has seen numerous variations and new titles continue
to be released.25
While companies such as Games Workshop were reprinting American
designs, so too were American companies distributing the more successful
European titles. The 1980s saw Avalon Hill reprint games such as Tresham’s
Civilization and 1829,26 along with the political negotiation game Kremlin
(Hostettler, 1988), considered the first modern German language game to be
reprinted in English (Scherer-Hoock, 2003).27 Other notable Avalon Hill
designs of the period include Gunslinger (Hamblen, 1982), a second-by-second
simulation of gunfighting in the Old West, the chariot racing Circus Maximus
(Greenwood and Matheny, 1979), and a 1990 reprint of Derek Carver’s self-
published auction game Showbiz (1985a).28
Smaller U.S. companies were also responsible for a growing number of

The fourth edition of Talisman by Fantasy Flight Games (image by David Dudley,
courtesy Fantasy Flight Games).
44 EUROGAMES

games that introduced some innovative and memorable gameplay elements to

the hobby. Designer Steve Jackson, who had left Metagaming to form his
own company, produced Illuminati (1983), a satirical game of global conspir-
acy theories that took Cosmic Encounter’s rule-breaking exceptions to extreme
lengths and added variable goals to the mix.29 Tom Jolly’s Wiz War (1983)
was another title that gathered a sizeable cult following among gamers. Initially
self-produced in a small Ziploc bag, the game, set in a typical dungeon-like
maze, offered a simple rules system that effectively simulated the back and
forth of dueling wizards in a chaotic battle via the use of card play.30 Through
a total of seven separate editions, Wiz War continued to be popular, and when
the game finally went out of print it was not long before enterprising fans
began making their own copies of this classic “beer and pretzels” game.31
In strong contrast to the confrontational style of gameplay found in
games such as Wiz War, West End Games’ Tales of the Arabian Nights (Gold-
berg, 1985) introduced elements of storytelling to a board game with a
paragraph-based system that led players on an adventure through the world
of 1001 nights. At the outset of the game, players choose their own victory
conditions from a mix of story and destiny points. As the player moves around
the board, increasing in status, his opponents read to him from the “Book of
Tales,” describing the encounters that occur and the results thereof. A clever
mix of interactive narrative and board game play, Tales of the Arabian Nights
was re-issued in a revised form by Z-Man games in 2009. Though not so
explicit, similar narrative emphasis can be found in Richard Launius’ Arkham
Horror (1987), a cooperative game set in the Cthulhu mythos that sees players
racing around the eponymous town in an effort to stop nightmare creatures
from spilling over from an alternative dimension.32

Light in the Blind Alley

The hobby board games described in this chapter demonstrate the gradual
evolution of board game design alongside the more visible genres of hobby
games. Although writer Richard Huzzey has dismissed American and British
designers of this period as “flail[ing] about in a blind alley, with only the most
fleeting and tenuous glimmers of quality” (2002), the recent reprinting of
many of the titles discussed here is evidence of their enduring appeal among
gamers. Developments in hobby board game design were almost certainly an
influence on the European design style that subsequently emerged. As designer
and publisher Morgan Dontanville observes:
It’s not like the Euro just magically appeared. In fact, an argument can be
made that Euros spawned out of this proto-hybrid (that and every Sid Sack-
 2. Anglo-American Hobby Board Games 1960 –1995 45

son and Alex Randolph game). To me, companies like 3M (Feudal) Avalon
Hill (Dune, Britannia, Gangsters, Merchant of Venus, Gunslinger), Mayfair (The
Keep, Demo Derby), Eon (Cosmic Encounter, Borderlands, Quirks), Hartland
Trefoil Ltd. (Civilization, Spanish Main), and even Wizard Magazine (King of
the Table Top, The Awful Green Things from Outer Space) had their finger on
the pulse of streamlining and modernizing the conflict game [2006].
Sid Sackson and Alex Randolph were responsible for designing some of
the first titles that would retrospectively be referred to as eurogames. Impor-
tantly, these designs were not focused on the simulation of armed conflict,
having instead more abstract gameplay with an emphasis on the game system
rather than the theme. Francis Tresham too produced deep engaging games
that did not rely on direct conflict, spawning a myriad of imitators, both ana-
logue and digital. Wargame designers, responding to the growth of the hobby,
published multiplayer games that encouraged negotiation and diplomacy
rather than statistical verisimilitude. As noted, a number of European designers
have acknowledged the work of the team behind Cosmic Encounter as signifi-
cant in their approach to design. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, hobby
board game designs shifted away from lengthy two-player games towards mul-
tiplayer games with an emphasis on sociability and playability over simulation.
While Huzzey’s assertion is perhaps correct in terms of mass-market games,
hobby board game design left a lasting mark on the modern culture of board
gaming. Perhaps more importantly, the popularity and diversity of the titles
discussed here indicates a growing market for board games accompanying the
general growth of the hobby gaming sector. This established community of
adult gamers would provide an ideal environment for the dissemination of
eurogames in the late 1990s.
 3

Gesellschaftsspiele —
Gaming in Germany

Like novels, games don’t come out of the blue. They come from a given designer,
at a given time, in a given social situation.— Bruno Faidutti, in Appelcline,
2006a

Throughout the late 20th century Anglo-American board game design

evolved largely subject to the influence of an expanding hobby game market.
Concurrently, in what was at the time West Germany, a distinctive approach
to game design was emerging that would later come to underpin the eurogame
genre. Although the impact of this design style would not be felt in the broader
hobby gaming market until the success of Die Siedler von Catan in 1995, the
seeds of this approach can be found in games published in Germany as early
as the late 1970s. The geo-cultural specificity of this design style, and the
enthusiastic domestic reception to these game forms prior to 1995, suggests
influences on game designers and players in Germany that were not present
elsewhere.
Although clearly one cannot, even with the most diligent research, assign
causal relationships between particular historical and cultural circumstances
and the creation of specific artifacts, as designer Bruno Faidutti acknowledges
above, games are not created in a cultural vacuum. Indeed, there can be little
doubt that such influences played a part in the emergence of the eurogame
form in Germany. A lengthy precedent for the production of high quality
toys and games in Germany has resulted in the active preservation of these
artifacts through the efforts of dedicated museums and archives. In turn, Ger-
many has evolved a media ecology that reflects and reinforces the notion that
sedentary games are a legitimate leisure pursuit. Indeed, a lively gaming culture
within Germany actively encourages and rewards designers and publishers of
original board and table games. Finally, the impact of post-war attitudes
toward conflict arguably had a significant impact on the way that designers

46
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 47

working in Germany approached the challenges of creating competitive games.

These particular cultural and commercial considerations have influenced not
only the growth of gaming in Germany, but also the form of the games that
are produced. Together they provide an insight into why Germany has become
the acknowledged center of board game design innovation worldwide.

Toy Capital of the World

Germany has long been associated with the production of high-quality
toys. Helmut Schwarz traces the beginnings of toy production (specifically
clay dolls) in Nuremberg to the late fourteenth century (2003), and the city
has long claimed the title of “toy capital of the world” (McCafferty, 1999).
Taxation documents dated 1400 describe wooden doll makers, while illustra-
tions from the mid–16th century depict craftsmen carving wooden figures.
By the end of the 18th century a store catalogue lists 8,000 individual toys,
all of which the owner claims originate from the city:
The extensive range of Nuremberg toys and educational materials displayed in
the document includes hobby-horses, wooden building bricks and figures,
fully furnished doll’s houses and kitchens, miniature shops, tin figures, chil-
dren’s crockery and musical instruments, parlour games, magnetic toys and
optical and mechanical marvels [Schwarz, 2003, emphasis mine].
As Schwarz notes, such a large range of products in the pre-industrial
period suggests the existence of significant international trade. As a cultural
center of Europe, and under the protection of the Catholic Church, Nurem-
berg was renowned as the “birthplace of technology” within Germany. Exten-
sive connections with cottage industries in surrounding areas contributed to
the development of a sizeable wooden crafts industry, producing toys and
other miniature items from wood. These goods, known as “Nuremberg wares,”
helped cement the city’s worldwide reputation as a center of craft production.
At the same time, in the realm of German domestic life, David Hamlin has
suggested that the dominant ideals of the 18th and 19th century resulted in
an increased desire by parents to separate children from the influences of the
broader society (2003). This emphasis, which demanded control of the child’s
social environment, resulted in increased demand for toys. Moreover, the
general trend towards industrialization during the 19th century resulted in
Nuremberg becoming the principal industrial center in Bavaria. As a conse-
quence of this shift, increasing numbers of toys were now constructed from
tin, reflecting a society with a growing emphasis on technology. The city
evolved to become the “undisputed centre of metal toy production” and was
home to companies such as Gebrüder Bing and Schuco (Schwarz, 2003).
48 EUROGAMES

From the mid–19th century, the growth of the toy market was matched
by a similar interest in board and table games. In 1883, Bavarian bookseller
Otto Robert Maier established a publishing company specializing in the pro-
duction of instruction pamphlets for architects and craftspeople (Hanson,
2006, p. 44). After early successes, Maier turned to the production of games,
first commissioning a series of eight games for adults and then, in 1884, A
Trip Around the World, a board game based upon the Jules Verne novel Around
the World in Eighty Days (Hauser, 1993). The game quickly became popular
on the German market, partly due to the high quality of the tin figurines and
printed board that Maier commissioned from independent suppliers. By 1892,
Maier had sold his bookstore and decided to focus exclusively on his thriving
publishing business, which he registered under the name Ravensburger. Rec-
ognizing the growth of the games market in Germany, Maier registered a sub-
sidiary company, Ravensburger Games, in 1900 (Hauser, 1993). By 1902 the
Ravensburger catalogue featured approximately 100 games alongside the estab-
lished line of books, and in 1912 the company began translating games into
other European languages. Choosing not to compete with successful compa-
nies in the general toy industry, Maier focused on board games and puzzles.
By the time of the First World War, Germany dominated the worldwide
production of toys (Burton, 1997, p. 9). The war brought production to a
halt, as factories were turned over to arms production, and international mar-
kets were rendered inaccessible. Although Germany would recover somewhat,
by the end of the war the domination of world toy markets was lost. Subse-
quently, and at the point of apparent recovery, the onset of the Great Depres-
sion and the rise to power of the National Socialist Party further damaged
the industry, as racial policies forced a large number of Jewish manufacturers
to leave the country. German toys were boycotted in many countries; and
with the onset of the Second World War, those factories that remained were
once again turned over to the production of arms, with a general ban on toy
production issued in 1943 (Schwarz, 2003).
By the time the war came to a close in 1945, many of Germany’s factories
had been destroyed, and those that had previously made toys and games were
no exception. However, recovery was relatively swift, and the West German
toy industry increased exports from eight million to over 100 million DM
between 1948 and 1953. In 1950 the International Toy Fair was held in Nurem-
berg for the first time, cementing the reputation of the region and the country
as central to the world’s toy industry (“Spielwarenmesse,” 2008). Throughout
the 1950s this successful growth continued, resulting in Schuco becoming the
largest toy manufacturer in Europe over the course of the decade (Schwarz,
2003). In 1959, William Hurter’s Memory was the hit of the Nuremberg Toy
Fair, establishing Ravensburger as an international presence in family games
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 49

(Hanson, 2006, p. 45).1 Although the 1970s saw sufficient competition from
Asian and American toy producers to change Germany to a largely toy-
importing country, German manufacturers continued to offer high quality
products on the international market (Schwarz, 2003). The observation that
German culture was seen as being a key to rapid economic recovery following
the war (Carter, 1997, p. 22), and that the games industry recovered so quickly,
suggests a perception of games as a vital part of the German national iden-
tity.
By the 1970s however, German game companies were presented with a
problem. As Stuart Dagger notes, while the larger British and American com-
panies were increasingly relying on tried and tested family games, German
publishers did not have this option available:
It is of significance that Ravensburger, the biggest of the German companies,
did not own the German rights to Monopoly, Cluedo, Scrabble and so on. So
for them the defensive business option of focusing just on these wasn’t possi-
ble. In order to survive they had to go on being creative. This would also have
made them willing listeners and supporters when the originators of the Spiel
des Jahres and the Essen Games Fair began their efforts to improve and pro-
mote German board games [Dagger, 2008].
Ravensburger, principally a producer of family games, began to nurture an
in-house design team to develop games that were German in origin. To retain
a regional identity in an arena increasingly dominated by multinational cor-
porations, it was clear that local ingenuity would be required. Fortunately,
game companies were assisted in their efforts by a media that reflects the estab-
lished cultural significance of games in Germany.

Games and the German Media

Perhaps the greatest influence on contemporary gaming culture in Ger-
many is the high media presence afforded games when compared with other
nations. Games are reviewed on radio, designers appear on television shows
with their latest creations, and many newspapers print regular board gaming
columns (Kramer, 2000a; Heli, 2007). Additionally, a number of specialist
magazines —Spielezeitschrift—are devoted exclusively to coverage of board and
card games, and have wide circulation. The first of these, Die Pöppel-Revue,
was established in 1977 and named after the iconic wooden pieces that were
so commonplace in Ravensburger games of the time (Eggert, 2006a). Begin-
ning as a vehicle for discussion of play-by-mail games, Die Pöppel-Revue was
a simple fanzine that quickly grew to embrace many facets of German gaming
culture. The final issue was published in December 2001. Spielbox, first pub-
50 EUROGAMES

lished in 1981 by Reiner Müller, provides reviews of new games along with
game commentary, news from game fairs, and, occasionally, original games
and expansions by recognized designers such as Reiner Knizia, Sid Sackson
and Alex Randolph. With a print run of approximately 13,000 (Galanti,
2005), the magazine publishes special almanac issues that focus upon a single
designer and/or game.2 Similar magazines include Spielerei, which organizes
the annual Hippoodice game design competition (Werneck, 2004), and Fair-
play, established in 1987, which, as well as taking over the voting for the
Deutscher Spiel Preis, runs the Fairplay poll, an on-the-spot ballot held to
gauge consumer interest in new releases at the Essen games fair.

Game Awards
The most tangible outcome of the German media’s support of gaming
culture, however, is the Spiel des Jahres (Game of the Year), without doubt
the most influential board and table game award in the world. Indeed, it has
been suggested that a Spiel des Jahres–winning game can expect a tenfold
increase in sales through its association with the award (Kramer, 2000b).3
The prize was established in 1978 by a group of specialist journalists with the
purpose of “promot[ing] the cultural asset games [sic], to stimulate the idea
of playing games with family and friends and to give orientation within the
large choice of games available” (“Spiel des Jahres,” 2008). Active jury member
and co-founder Tom Werneck describes the inception of the award:
Our vision was to put such a strong pressure on the game industry that they
struggle to bring the highest possible level of quality on a competitive market.
When we look back now, 30 years later, we see that it worked out.... It
worked out because the award Spiel des Jahres had such a strong influence on
sales figures (factor 100!) that it worked like a sting in their flesh inflaming
competition [2008].4
In addition to the awards process, the organization Spiel des Jahres e.V
contributes to the gaming community in Germany through active promotion
in the media, support of social institutions in adopting games, and the award-
ing of grants to game designers and scholars. The award jury is comprised of
members of the German media who have “proven their competence and their
power of judgment” in the assessment of games, with individuals who are
directly involved in the gaming industry specifically excluded from partici-
pation (“Spiel des Jahres,” 2008). Although the award offers no financial com-
pensation, the publishers of the winning game are entitled to use the
prestigious Spiel des Jahres emblem in promotion and packaging, for which
they must pay the organization a licensing fee. This license fee is the primary
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 51

source of revenue for the organization. A list of eligible games is produced

shortly after the Nuremberg Toy Fair in February. The Spiel des Jahres jury
then produces a shortlist of five games and a series of annotated recommen-
dations (Auswahlliste), with the winner announced in June or July of the same
year. Eligibility is restricted to games that have been published in Germany
in the preceding year, though exceptions are occasionally made for re-
implementations of older games. The judging criteria are identified as:

1. Game concept (originality, playability, game value)

2. Rule structure (composition, clearness, comprehensibility)
3. Layout (box, board, rules)
4. Design (functionality, workmanship)

Since 1991 the jury has also awarded the Kinderspiel des Jahres (Children’s
Game of the Year), which is decided upon via a separate selection process.
Additionally, the jury often awards special prizes (Sonderpreis) which recognize
particular elements of a game, such as the Sonderpreis Schönes Spiel (Most
Beautiful Game), awarded frequently until 1997, Sonderpreis Literatur im Spiel
(Best Use of Literature in a Game)5 and Sonderpreis Komplexes Spiel (Best
Complex Game). In 2011 a new award, Kennerspiel des Jahres (Connoissuer’s
Game of the Year), was introduced to “give guidance to those people who
have already been playing games for a longer time and are experienced in
learning new rules” (“Kennerspiel des Jahres,” 2011).
In English-speaking countries it is difficult to appreciate the importance of
the Spiel des Jahres in Germany. Although there are awards in the United States
(e.g., International Gamers Award,6 Origins Award),7 these tend to be directed
at hobby gamers, while the Spiel des Jahres has established a reputation for focus-
ing on games that have a broader appeal to those outside the gaming hobby.
Consequently, the jury tends to award those games that can be played within a
family setting, eschewing overly complex games and those whose thematic appeal
might restrict the audience. More complex hobbyist games are explicitly
addressed by the Deutscher Spiele Preis, a separate award originated in 1990 by
the German magazine Die Pöppel-Revue, whose votes are gathered from industry
members and gaming clubs throughout Germany and, since 2001, via worldwide
votes cast through the Internet and readers of Fairplay magazine.8 The Essen
Feather is awarded in the same ceremony as the Deutscher Spiele Preis, with an
emphasis on the clarity and presentation of game rules (“Essen Feather,” 2008).
Other countries have followed the German lead in creating awards similar
to the Spiel des Jahres and the Deutscher Spiel Preis. As mentioned, the USA
has the International Gamers Award, initiated by games writer Greg Schloesser,
which has a similar focus to that of the Deutscher Spiele Preis and is judged,
52 EUROGAMES

as the title implies, by an international panel of game writers. Austria’s Spiel

der Spiele was initiated in 2001 and avoids any potential redundancies atten-
dant with the separate German awards by recommending games in a number
of categories.9 Two French awards, the As d’Or, awarded at the Cannes Games
Festival since 1988, and the Jeu de l’année, initiated in 2003, were merged in
2005 and have a similar emphasis on family games as the Spiel des Jahres. Still,
none of these awards has attained the prestige of the Spiel des Jahres.

Nurturing a Culture of Game Design

In addition to a higher media profile and broader customer base, the very
culture of German game design is arguably very different to that in the USA and
U.K. In Germany, the creator of a given game is not generally described as
an inventor, but as an author. This subtle difference in the way game designers
are viewed, in comparison with most other cultures, reflects a different under-
standing of both the nature of the design process and the creativity involved
in arriving at a genuinely innovative game system. Tom Werneck explains:
The development of a game ... is in first line a creative process. Obviously it
requires some systematic and hard work. Compared to the creative factor,
however, diligence should be rather little. If games are “invented” based on
pure analytics then you feel it. Such games mostly are bloodless and have only
a poor playing appeal. They suffer from a lack of a creative momentum — just
the flashover from mechanistic industriousness to a brilliant and ingenious
idea [2004].
Over time, the recognition of the creativity involved in game design has
led to the attribution of the author on virtually all German games.10 Although
initially the idea that the name of a game designer should appear on the box
was given short shrift by game companies, Werneck suggests that a gradual
shift can be attributed to a number of factors. As game companies began to
see themselves increasingly as publishing houses, the attribution of an author
seemed a natural progression. Smaller companies too began to realize that the
name of an author served as a distinguishing element in a rapidly expanding
marketplace. This distinguishing feature works not only for well-known
designers but also for those who are producing their first game, since, if the
first game by a given designer is successful, consumers are far more likely to
gravitate towards subsequent releases (Werneck, 2004). Game publishers have
also had to bow to pressure from individual designers. In 1988 a number of
game designers attending the Nuremberg Toy Fair signed their names to the
now-famous “Coaster Proclamation,” a commitment not to sell games to
companies who would not print the designer’s name on the box (“The Coaster
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 53

Proclamation,” 2010).11 As a consequence of all these factors, by the 1990s it

had become common practice to list the designer’s name on the cover of a
game.
Still, the commercial recognition of the designer as author is not enough
in itself to create an active culture of game design. Since the 1970s and the
establishment of the Spiel des Jahres, a community has developed which is
highly supportive of game authors. In 1983 designer and artist Reinhold Wit-
tig12 introduced the term “spieleautor” (Game Author) with an invite to the
inaugural Spieleautorentreffen (Game Author’s Meeting) in Goettingen. Each
year since then, new and experienced designers, publishers and game editors
have met to discuss issues of significance within the game industry, to swap
ideas and innovations, and to present prototypes to prospective publishers.

The Coaster Proclamation. Signatories are (top left, vertical) Reinhold Wittig,
Helge Andersen, Hajo Bücken, Erwin Glonegger, Dirk Hanneforth, Knut
Michael Wolf, Wolfgang Kramer, Joe Nikisch, Gilbert Obermeier, Alex Randolph,
John Rüttinger, Roland Siegers and a not yet identified author (courtesy Christian
Beiersdorf and the Spiele-Autoren-Zunft).
54 EUROGAMES

In 1991, responding to demand generated by the Goettingen events, the

Spieleautorenzunft (SAZ)13 was established as a guild for game authors. The
goals of the guild are threefold:

• Promotion of games as cultural property

• Promotion of exchange of ideas among game authors and in the
game industry
• Protection of the interests of game authors

The SAZ is currently the largest organization of game designers in the world
and is now responsible for organizing workshops held at the Goettingen
Spieleautorentreffen. Previous chairmen have included notable designers such
as Wolfgang Kramer, Reiner Knizia and Marcel André Casasola Merkle. Mem-
bers are permitted entry to the annual Nuremberg Toy Fair (an event only
open to industry members) and the International Game Designer Conference
in Haar, as well as to a large number of other organized events throughout
the year (“Spieleautorenzunft,” 2008). Since its inception, many successful
games have been initially presented to publishers at Goettingen (Alden, 2008),
along with a number of awards: der Inno-Spatz (innovation sparrow — awarded
by the City of Goettingen), der Förderpreis für Nachwuchsautoren (prize for
new authors awarded by Spiel des Jahres e.V ) and der “Alex” (named after Alex
Randolph and awarded by die Spieleautorenzunft, which recognizes promotion
of gaming in the media).
Another highly regarded award is that for the Hippodice Autorenwettbe-
werb (Hippo Dice Authors Competition). Established in 1986, Hippodice
Autorenwettbewerb was initially responsible for the fanzine Speilerei. In 1988,
the club launched a game design competition that would subsequently become
an important award within the game design community. Voted upon by a jury
made up of industry figures, several winners and runners up have gone on to be
successfully published, most notably the negotiation game Chinatown (Hartwig,
1999), Werner Hodel’s Spiel des Jahres–winning Mississippi Queen (1998a),14
Christwart Conrad’s game of commodity speculation in the wine industry, Vino15
(1999), and, more recently, Thomas Odenhoven’s Portobello Market (2007), a
short game of area movement and control that was initially themed around rail-
ways in East India (Aleknevicus, 2001a; “Hippodice Spieleclub,” 2008).

Game Shows
For the lover of games, there is nothing quite like the spiel.— Schloesser, 2008c

Another measure of both consumer attention and the design-oriented

culture in Germany are the various gaming shows that occur throughout the
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 55

year, the largest of which is the Essen Games Fair. Officially titled Interna-
tionale Spieltage but known to hobby gamers as simply “the spiel” or “Essen,”
the Essen Games Fair is the largest non-digital gaming convention in the
world. Established in 1983, the fair was originally titled the German Games
Con, with the objective of providing an event where people could “meet and
play together and demonstrate that gaming was a vital part of the German
culture” (Schloesser, 2008c). After initial skepticism over the level of public
interest, the event grew considerably and eventually moved into the Essen
Exhibition Centre (Messe Essen) in order to accommodate growing numbers.
The spiel is traditionally held in late October and, along with the Nuremberg
Toy Fair in February, is the principal showcase for newly released board games
in the world. Unlike Nuremberg, the show is open to consumers and conse-
quently attracts crowds of close to 150,000 people over four days (“Interna-
tionale Spieltage,” 2008).
In gaming culture, the spiel has acquired something of a mythical rep-
utation as the premiere board gaming event in the world. Drawing publishers
from many countries, the event also plays host to the Deutscher Spiel Preis,
the Essen Feather and, more recently, the International Gamers Awards. Fol-
lowing the success of Essen, several other fairs have appeared which offer an

Game stall at the Essen Games Fair, 2009.

56 EUROGAMES

opportunity for the consumer to sample games at various stages of develop-

ment. The Süddeutsche Spielemesse in Stuttgart regularly attracts up to 100,000
visitors (Werneck, 2004; “Süddeutsche Spielemesse,” 2008), with similar
events taking place in München,16 and Vienna in Austria.17
Importantly, games fairs are considered a place where budding board
game designers can showcase new titles in the same venue as larger companies,
and, unlike in the USA (where companies such as Hasbro generally eschew
unsolicited submissions [Verbeten, 2007, p. 31]), the larger companies are
actively looking for innovative designs. Designers such as Friedemann Friese,
Andrea Meyer and Peter Prinz have all self-published games at Essen that
were eventually picked up by larger companies. As much as the games fairs
are commercial venues, the attitude of both publishers and designers retains
a cultural pride in producing quality games, which is arguably as much a part
of the German games industry as the quest for profit:
The idea of the possibility of profit as the main reason to produce games
would ring strange in German game companies’ ears.... When I speak to
American companies (like I did at this year’s Essen) there always seems to be a
kind of gleam in the eye when it comes to speaking of sales, whereas most
German game companies I know seem to be more of an idealistic bunch. Of
course they know that they have to sell games, but they also see a pride in the
product itself, no matter how it sells. They know that the market is domi-
nated by Trading Card Games and the like, but they find a certain pleasure in
producing “their” game [Eggert, 2005].
The idealism that gaming writer Morritz Eggert describes here is further evi-
dence of the particular value placed on games within German culture beyond
that of commercial potential.

The Influence of Post-War Attitudes to Wargames

Germany is extremely critical towards war games. That comes from the his-
tory and the experiences of the Second World War. The majority of people,
the family game culture, doesn’t really like to play war games. It’s modern
fairy tales they want to play [Knizia in Glenn, 2002].
Approximately 300 to 400 new board and table game designs are pub-
lished in Germany each year (Stöckmann and Jahnke, 2008a, p. 94). Over
the last thirty years or so, German designers have consistently produced a
high number of games that have been significantly different from those emerg-
ing in the rest of the world. Interviews with designers of the period, and com-
mentary from those in the industry, suggest that the influence of post-war
legislation and cultural taboo regarding conflict-themed play has been a factor
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 57

in shaping the game designs that emerged during this period (Huzzey, 2002;
Heli, 2007).
While in the USA wargames proved extremely successful in the latter
half of the 20th century, in post-war West Germany the combination of public
and governmental aversion to war-related products, along with strict laws
prohibiting the depiction of Nazi symbology on entertainment products,
meant that titles which were popular among hobbyists in other countries
received scant attention in Germany. As gaming writer Moritz Eggert observes,
“The generation that grew up in the bombed up remains of the ‘Reich’ didn’t
have ‘Kriegsspiele’18 on their mind when they became rebellious teenagers”
(Eggert, 2006b). The most commonly cited example used to exemplify game
manufacturers’ response to this aversion is that of the mainstream wargame
Risk. Whereas in the rest of the world the game was subtitled one of “global
domination,” the German version tasked the players with “liberat[ing] the
world” (Freund, 2005).
Perhaps as influential as the cultural taboo surrounding conflict was the
German law that prohibited the importation of war-related toys (Varney,
2000, p. 387). Although wargames were available in Germany, designers
walked a fine line with regards to the depiction of historically accurate insignia,
as evidenced by the case of game designers Harry Rowland and Greg Pinder.
Copies of their game Days of Decision III (2004) were confiscated and
destroyed due to the inclusion of a small swastika symbol on a counter depict-
ing Hitler (Eggert, 2006b; Lanza, 2006, p. 20). This combination of cultural
stigma and legal prohibition gave rise to the feeling that stores electing to
carry American wargames were “teetering on the edge of doing something
illegal,” with some particularly controversial games being discussed on national
television (Eggert, 2006b). British games writer Brian Walker describes this
effect in a review of the 1988 Essen Spiel:
Over to the Das Spiel stand now. This Hamburg based company is one of the
best known games shops in Germany, though their stand is bereft of home
grown products. Their speciality is importing and translating English and
American games. A large selection of American wargames is kept discreetly
under the counter, rather like the X-rated videos at your local newsagent
[1988].
As Järvinen observes, any game with a war theme brings “a discourse of ethnic
conflict into the game” (2009, p. 283). With the weight of recent history in
Germany, it is understandable that both commercial and cultural considera-
tions have played a part in shaping the work of aspiring designers who were
raised in what political historian Thomas Berger describes as a broader “culture
of anti-militarism” (1998).
Arguably, it is this aversion to themes and mechanics of direct conflict
58 EUROGAMES

that led to the popularity of the 3M range of games when they were released in
Germany. Although appealing to an adult market, few of the 3M games specifi-
cally called upon direct conflict in either theme or mechanism. Writer Rick Heli
addresses the influence that these games might have had on aspiring designers:
Taking Sackson’s Acquire as their model, they [German publishers] created
what they called Gesellschaftspiele, society games. The message was clear. The
games are not about the lawlessness and disorder of war, but the normal oper-
ation of civilized society [2004].
In the light of the influences discussed here, game designers in Germany were
implicitly tasked with the development of board games that avoided overt
themes of war and conflict. This was not an easy undertaking, as designer
Franz-Benno Delonge explains:
If you want to move away from the idea of confrontation, which is classically
at the core of nearly every game, then you have to come up with something
really new as an alternative [in Freund, 2005].
The alternative that Delonge speaks of is evident in the design sensibil-
ities that have come to typify the eurogame genre. The games that emerged
from this time and place focused on individual development and comparative
achievement rather than the direct conflict that typifies Anglo-American
designs of the period. A number of designers have alluded to this tendency
in their work. Wolfgang Kramer describes as one of the guiding principles in
his work that
players act constructive in order to improve their own results. They do not act
destructive and destroy the playing of their opponents. In my games a player
damages another player only then, when he makes a good move for himself.
The sense of his move is to help himself and not to damage the game of the
other player [in Yu, 2011b].
Klaus Teuber summarizes the appeal of his game, Die Siedler von Catan,
thusly:
I ... believe that most people in the world prefer to engage in constructive
rather than destructive activities. The world of Catan is built on the philoso-
phy of peaceful building, rather than war and violence. So the majority of
people, who believe in constructive aspects in life, probably like playing Catan
also for that reason [“Interview with Klaus Teuber,” 2005].
Finally, designer Reiner Knizia is even more direct in discussing his own
aversion to conflict:
I don’t like bloody games. I think we can get better missions out into the
world of gaming for the youngsters and the old guys than motivating people
to shoot each other [in Alden and Solko, 2009a].
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 59

As noted earlier, any claim of a direct causal relationship between par-

ticular cultural circumstances and a specific outcome must remain highly spec-
ulative. Yet the fact that German designers speak of their own aversion to
themes of conflict within games hints at a broader design philosophy that
eschews such subject matter. Particularly given the push among German com-
panies to deliver games to the domestic family market, it is not surprising to
find that the style of game design that emerged from Germany avoided cul-
turally sensitive topics and explored different paths than elsewhere.19

A Culture of Play
The very size of the German game market alone witnesses to the fact that
games are an important part of Germany’s culture.— Stöckmann and Jahnke,
2008a, p. 101

Although it would be a misnomer to imagine that the eurogames now

played by hobbyists worldwide are to be found in every German home, Ger-
mans do purchase more board and table games per capita than residents of
any other country (Curry, 2009). For the most part, these purchases mirror
those in other countries in that the mass-market staples produced by Hasbro
and Mattel dominate. Still, the broader awareness of games in Germany is
reflected in the games aisle of the average toy store that typically stocks a vari-
ety of adult strategy games — games that would only find a home in specialist
stores elsewhere in the world. Curator of the Bayerische Spiele-Archiv Tom
Werneck compares the games market in Germany with that of the United
States:
The culture of board games in the U.S. is closely linked to marketing and
trade. In Germany you find “Spielwarenhandel,” shops where you can find all
kind of toys and games. Furthermore you find well equipped departments
with toys and games in all major department stores. Normally you will find
sales staff who has at least a good basic knowledge about the games.... There-
fore you find informed consumers or consumers who will get a good piece of
advice if they ask for it. In the U.S. there is no culture of game critics and you
will hardly find a game retailer who knows what’s in the boxes. Market com-
munication in the U.S. is done in a different way: TV. Since it is almost
impossible to explain a complex board game between 12 (minimum time for a
spot) and 30 seconds (whatever exceeds this timeframe costs a fortune) all
major producers in the states focus on games which have either a very simple
structure which can be demonstrated in a few seconds or they must include a
sort of mechanic which can be shown on TV [2008].
The notion that German culture is more supportive of games is borne
out by the observations of writers, designers and publishers within the indus-
60 EUROGAMES

try. Gaming writer Mario Lanza notes that most Germans consider gaming
a “good, healthy pastime” (2006, p. 20) while designer Reiner Knizia offers
a similar perspective on the importance of games in the family environment:
You need to understand that playing games in Germany is synonymous with
“family values.” It is good to play games and games are quite frequently
bought as presents. It’s seen as a very valuable way of spending time together
as a family. Children grow up with a natural learning of games and as they
grow up they see more and more games and become fascinated with them. I
think that’s a culture which is very valuable in Germany and creates a big
market for many designers and many game companies [in Glenn, 1999a].
As a result of this attitude, the adult play of commercial board and table
games does not suffer the kind of marginalization that is typically seen in
other Western countries. Where in the USA and the U.K. board gaming is
typically confined to small groups of hobbyists, in Germany the market is far
more diverse. Games journalist Rick Thornquist describes the differences
through his experience at U.S. and German conventions:
If you go to Origins or GenCon [U.S. conventions] it is mainly a gamer type
of convention and you do mainly see gamer geeks, but Essen20 is not like that
at all. It’s very much regular people, families, teenagers, kids ... it’s everybody,
and it’s amazing to see all these people playing the games that we play all the
time.
Because the Germans play games so much it’s really a convention for every-
body and not just for gaming geeks [in Alden and Solko, 2004a].
A variety of arguments have been put forward to explain the broader
acceptance of gaming within German culture. GAMA21 executive director
Gordon Calleja points to the difficulties of surviving two world wars, sug-
gesting economic motivations for pursuing inexpensive entertainment options
(in Alden and Solko, 2009b). Games writer Moritz Eggert has suggested that
the German predisposition towards gaming stems from a strong culture of
hospitality:
Why do Germans like games? I think there are several factors at work here.
One is the German concept of Gemütlichkeit [difficult to translate, but,
roughly, “hospitality, coziness”], which means that being invited over and
spending an evening with your neighbours or your friends is seen as socially
desirable [Heli, 2007].
Although such an emphasis on sociability is recognizable in any culture, it is
only in Germany, claims Richard Huzzey, that “families savour the latest
[game] designs” (2002). Whatever the reason for this sense of appreciation
the result, Weiland Freund writes, is that “perhaps no other German cultural
industry does as well, in relative terms, as board games” (2005).
It is clear that German culture has a unique relationship with board and
 3. Gesellschaftsspiele — Gaming in Germany 61

table game play. Not only do Germans purchase more games per capita than
any other nation, their cultural value is reflected in the game collections such
as those held by the Deutsches Spiele-Archiv, the Bayerische Spiele-Archiv and
the Deutsches Spielemuseum. Supported by Spiel des Jahres e.V, Deutsches Spiele-
Archiv in Marburg was created in 1978 as a research center for the study and
documentation of board and card games.22 Housing one of the largest collec-
tions of non-digital games in the world (approximately 30,000), the archive
also holds a vast library of related literature, including catalogues and
brochures, primarily from the post-war era. The archive was established with
the following goals:

• Documentation of games development in the German-speaking area

after 1945
• Promotion of research and science in the field of games and gaming
• Promotion of the game within the family and in society
• Supporting the media in reporting about games (“Deutsches Spiele-
Archiv,” 2008)

From these goals it is evident that the organization places a special empha-
sis on the connection between gaming and the family, and the importance of
promoting this aspect of games through the media. Alongside the Deutsches
Spiele-Archiv is the smaller Bayerische Spiele-Archiv in Haar. Originally estab-
lished to duplicate the functions of the larger archive to insure against loss,
the two archives now function independently (Werneck, 2008). Closely related
to the archives is the Deutsches Spielemuseum in Chemnitz. Housing 50,000
games from around the world, along with catalogues and documents dating
back five centuries, the museum originated in 1986 in Hamburg, moving to
its current location in 1994. The museum maintains traveling exhibits that
have seen exposure throughout Europe, as well as hosting special events in
the city (“Deutsches Spielemuseum,” 2008).

Family Games for Hobby Gamers

The particularity of the cultural context in which modern games devel-
oped in Germany goes some way towards explaining the reasons for the emer-
gence of the eurogame as a distinct genre. The lengthy history of excellence
in toy and game production, along with an established cultural disposition
towards gaming, led to a perceived need for domestic innovation in the family
game market. The drive towards originality in game design has been further
enhanced and influenced by a broad level of institutionalized support for both
62 EUROGAMES

the game design community and the hobby in general. Along with an active
gaming community, the principal influences upon this positive perception
have been the media, game awards, an active game design community, game
shows and the presence of institutions which reflect the value of games as cul-
tural artifacts (Kramer, 2000a; Werneck, 2004).
The German emphasis upon games that could be played by both children
and adults alike cannot be overstated. From the outset, German game design-
ers were mandated by cultural and commercial considerations with designing
games that anyone could play — thus the need for short concise rules, man-
ageable playing times and culturally acceptable themes. Where in the USA
and the U.K. family games remained a fairly stagnant market in terms of orig-
inality, in Germany the fact that domestic companies were continuing to pro-
duce new titles resulted in a culture that was more accepting of innovation:
The market for board games is immense in the German speaking countries,
because consumers show a lot of interest, and there is a great demand for new
(forms of ) games. The current generation, which grew up with the
intellectually-demanding board games, is selective and willing to deal with
more sophisticated games [Stöckmann and Jahnke, 2008a, p. 100].
As quality games began to appear in increasing numbers, so the level of game
design moved further in innovative directions to keep pace with the demands
and expectations of a growing audience who have come to “appreciate systems
innovation” (Costikyan, 2004).
While in the USA and the U.K. the family games market was largely a
site of repetition and brand licensing, in Germany it was, in contrast, the site
and impetus for innovation. The importance of the acceptance of more sophis-
ticated titles lies in the fact that by the time German “family” games received
attention within the USA and the U.K., it was small groups of hobby gamers
who had sufficient experience and understanding to appreciate the quality of
the games. Thus it was largely word of mouth within hobby game commu-
nities that led to the gradual emergence of German games upon the world
stage. Moreover, it was not only game players who would come to embrace
the form and elevate the genre to its current position, but designers working
throughout the world who would take their cues from what would soon
become known as eurogames.
 4

From German Games

to Eurogames

Every decade a new form of the hobby emerges and recruits the bulk of the
new gamers. In the 1960s the fad was wargames, in the 1970s, RPGs, computer
games exploded in the 1980s, the 1990s brought CCGs, and the new century
has seen the German game phenomenon.— De Rosa, 1998

The state of the gaming hobby in Germany was not altogether dissim-
ilar to that of the USA and the U.K. during the 1970s (Dagger, 2003). How-
ever, subject to the influences described in the previous chapter, between 1982
and 1994 the German game market experienced strong growth, often at a rate
of 10 percent or more (Kramer, 2000a). A number of newer imprints were
introduced by more established publishing houses,1 while others came from
new companies entering the growing market.2
Throughout this period German designers produced a succession of
innovative and domestically successful titles. Although the broader Eng-
lish-speaking gaming community did not have ready access to these games
until 1996, small groups of game enthusiasts, firstly in the U.K. and later in
the USA, were following the development of German games long before
they became a staple of hobbyist culture. Importantly, as word of this move-
ment spread through the hobby gaming community, the rise of the Inter-
net in the late 1990s enabled the dissemination of information on a global
scale.
Rather than the result of a concerted marketing effort, the worldwide
popularity of German games principally arose through word of mouth, with
publishers rising to meet a demand generated by enthusiastic hobbyists. These
hobbyist communities were fundamental to the emergence of eurogames as a
mainstay of gaming culture.

63
64 EUROGAMES

Early German Games (1980—1994)

The first few games to win the newly-founded Spiel des Jahres were not
German in origin but rather foreign designs in their German edition. David
Parlett, a British games historian and frequent writer for the U.K. magazine
Games and Puzzles, was the inaugural winner with his strategic race game
Hase und Ingel (1979). In 1980 the award was given to Ephraim Hertzano’s
Rummikub (1977), and the following year to Sid Sackson for the abstract
Parker Brother’s game Focus (1964). The year 1982 saw U.S. designer Alex
Randolph and German Michel Matchoss win the Spiel des Jahres for the chil-
dren’s memory game Sagaland (1981); while in 1983 the award was given to
an all–German team at Ravensburger for the deductive chase game Scotland
Yard (Burggraf et al., 1983), which was subsequently reprinted by Milton
Bradley in the USA. The year 1983 also saw the first Essen Spiel event in a
year that can be broadly identified as the beginnings of the new wave of Ger-
man games. For the first time, the Spiel des Jahres shortlist was composed
entirely of German designs. The popularity of Scotland Yard, at least within
Germany, was evidence of this growth. Eggert recalls “Scotland Yard really
was a common household item at one point — I knew no family who didn’t
own a copy and didn’t play it from time to time” (in Heli, 2007).
Dampfross (Watts, 1984), a German variation of Englishman David Watt’s
Railway Rivals, secured the Spiel des Jahres in 1984, while the following year
the award was given to Sherlock Holmes Criminal-Cabinet (Edwards et al.,
1981), a pseudo role-playing game of deduction. In 1985 the Spiel des Jahres
was, for the first time, awarded to an individual German game designer, Wolf-
gang Kramer, for his bluffing and deduction game Heimlich and Co. (1984).
Kramer had been designing games since 1974 — his Niki Lauda’s Formel 1 had
been nominated in 1980— but his securing of the award again in 1987 for the
transportation game Auf Achse 3 led to his becoming the “first star” of German
game design (Levy, 2001c).4 Relatively unnoticed at the time, 1986 also marked
the publication of Karl-Heinz Schmiel’s game of German politics, Die Macher,
a game that foreshadowed the deeper potential of the emerging German style,
and which “gradually developed mythical status on both sides of the Atlantic,
both for its game play and its scarcity” (Scherer-Hoock, 2003). In the mean-
time, 1988 saw the debut of another up and coming designer, Klaus Teuber,
who won the award for his party game of clay modeling, Barbarossa (1988).
In Britain at this time, Mark Green, proprietor of the London retail store
Just Games, was importing some of the more popular German titles and insert-
ing his own translations into the box. The store rapidly became a mecca for
British gamers who were seeking more adult-oriented games. Similarly, in the
USA, Carol Monica of Games People Play in Cambridge, Massachusetts, had
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 65

Valley Games’ 2006 re-issue of Die Macher (image by Simon Holding, courtesy
Valley Games).

success importing European titles such as 1829, Civilization and Railway Rivals
(Scherer-Hoock, 2003). Close by, in Boston, ex–Avalon Hill designer Alan Moon
had established the North Shore Gaming Club, largely through advertisements
in The General.5 Moon had become interested in German designs during his
time at Avalon Hill and subsequently made contact with English gaming writer
Brian Walker, who was familiar with the growing number of games now coming
out of Germany. Throughout the late 1980s the North Shore Gaming Club con-
tinued to expand, and Moon’s group increasingly played more German designs:
German games were definitely there from the start. The club was sort of a
third Avalon Hill games, a third Axis and Allies type games, and a third Ger-
man games. By that point, I was mostly interested in German games; my
interest in war games had been going down ever since playing my first game of
Kremlin [Moon in Scherer-Hoock, 2003].
In 1988, Brian Walker launched Games International, the first British
magazine whose coverage was broadly inclusive of German games. Walker
produced sixteen editions of the magazine before commercial failure led to a
name change in 1990 (Strateg y Plus) and a decision to alter the coverage of
the magazine to computer games. At the time of its inception, however, Games
International was unique in its coverage of German games, borne largely out
of Walker’s interest in the genre:
66 EUROGAMES

I never really had a “marketing approach.” German games seemed to me to be

the best around at that time so I gave them some coverage. It was very excit-
ing on a personal level to discover these games, so I figured that if they excited
me then they would the reader [Walker in Haag, 2003].
Subtitled “The Journal of Fun and Games,” the magazine was also the first
to bring information about the annual Essen Spiel event to English speakers.
In addition to reviews, the magazine featured interviews with designers, strat-
egy articles and contributions from Moon, who had signed on as the American
editor.6 Peaking at approximately 400 subscribers, and generating print runs
of 8000 copies (though Walker admits that perhaps 2000 of these were actually
sold), Games International was available through British newsstands and specialty
games stores, as well as a limited number of stores in the USA (Haag, 2003).
Following a brief period working for Parker Brothers, Alan Moon was
now producing independent designs with the German market in mind.7
Importantly for a designer, the German publishers’ interest in the merits of
individual game designs contrasted sharply with the license-driven character
of the U.S. market:
It was nice to be able to design a game and have somebody look at the game
and play it and decide if they were going to publish it or not for that reason
[Moon in Batty, 2006b].
One attendee of Moon’s gaming club was designer Mike Gray, who began
making frequent trips to the Essen fair on behalf of his employer, Milton
Bradley. Gray brought a number of titles to his employer’s attention during
the 1990s, notably Kramer’s Niki Lauda Formel 1, Reiner Knizia’s Flinke Pinke
(1994b), the dexterity game Bausack (Zoch, 1987) and the children’s memory
game Zick Zacke Hühnerkacke (Zoch, 1998), all of which were republished in
the USA (Scherer-Hoock, 2003).8
In 1990 Klaus Teuber won his second Spiel des Jahres with Adel Verpflichtet
(1990a). As well as winning the inaugural Deutscher Spiele Preis in the same
year, Adel Verpflichtet is significant in that it was the first German game to
receive widespread international publication9:
Since many of these versions were by “hardcore” publishers (such as Avalon
Hill and Gibson), more serious players were exposed to the game. And what
they saw — short playing time, high player interaction, clever rules, attractive
and functional components — was very influential in the initial opinion of
what Germany could produce. To many players throughout the world, Adel
Verpflichtet was the first “German game,” and it served its industry very well
[Levy, 2001a].

Meanwhile, in the U.K. one writer for the defunct Games International,
Mike Siggins, began to formulate ideas for another magazine. Siggins had
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 67

been introduced to German games in 1988 when Brian Walker had shown
him the Walter Toncar bicycle racing game 6-Tage Rennen10 (1986) at a small
games convention in the U.K. Siggins, a former wargamer, was immediately
taken with the German design:
From that point I never looked back, and I still cherish the feeling that this
German Game, the very first of hundreds, imparted. Even now, it is hard to
quantify the impact of the European game titles and but for them I might still
be playing long, turgid stuff like Civilization [Siggins in Vasel, 2005c].
In October 1989 Siggins launched the most influential publication in
the promotion of German style gaming in Britain, Sumo. The first issue, intro-
duced at Essen Spiel that year, was a stapled-together fanzine photocopied
onto A5 sheets of paper and distributed by mail. Siggins made Sumo’s raison
d’être explicit in the first issue:
For some time I have been thinking about publishing a newsletter to cover the
recent influx of European games onto the U.K. games scene. There can be no
doubt that quality games such as Sechs Tage Rennen and Die Macher have
made a substantial impact on our game playing habits and expectations, yet
there are very few people reviewing these games in-depth or providing associ-
ated services such as rules translations [1989].
Charles Vasey, Mike Clifford, Stuart Dagger, Derek Carver, David Far-
quhar and Alan How were regular contributors and reviewers in the magazine,
which would eventually run for 44 issues over eight years.11 Interestingly, Sig-
gins notes that a quarter of the subscriptions were from Germany (1990).
Sumo immediately gathered attention on both sides of the Atlantic, and the
letters page attracted lively commentary from enthusiasts and active designers
such as Americans Richard Berg, Don Greenwood and Alan Moon, and Eng-
lishmen Richard Breese12 and Francis Tresham. Running alongside Sumo was
Siggins’ Rules Bank, a service he had started in 1989 to provide gamers with
translated rules for imported games. He would seek out accurate translations
and then make them available by request for the price of a stamped, addressed
envelope. At its peak, Siggins was posting out 50 envelopes a week, supple-
menting translations provided by Just Games’ Mark Green and others. A letter
to Sumo suggests this was a badly needed service:
Some of the English “translations” circulating with German games are, to be
honest, rubbish. A number I’ve seen seem to have been written by people who
couldn’t read German but relied on writing down what they remembered from
someone else who told them what they’d heard from ... etc. [Key, 1991].
Meanwhile, the growth of the Internet in the late 1980s offered another
way for predominantly English-speaking gamers to discuss the hobby. Estab-
lished in 1987, the newsgroup rec.games.board was the first dedicated forum
68 EUROGAMES

Mike Siggins’ Sumo (courtesy Mike Siggins).

for hobbyists. Although sparsely populated for the first two years of its exis-
tence, by 1989 the group had begun to flourish, with a range of discussion
topics mostly revolving around wargaming, abstract strategy games and play-
by-email gaming (PBEM). The first mention of German games is found in a
lengthy review of Die Macher by Avalon Hill designer Jennifer Schlickbernd,
appearing on the newsgroup in October 1989. Although this review appears
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 69

to have passed largely unnoticed, by 1992 a few enquiries began to appear

regarding rules translations of European games, specifically Die Macher, Full
Metal Planète (Delfanti et al., 1988) and another Karl-Heinz Schmiel design,
Extrablatt (1991).
In 1990, Alan Moon held the first Gathering of Friends, an informal
invite-only convention for gamers interested in the new wave of European
designs (Scherer-Hoock, 2003).13 Taking place in Chicopee, Massachusetts,
the convention continues to be held to this day, attracting a growing number
of players, designers and, more recently, publishers, from the U.S. and Europe.
In 1991 Moon also established White Wind as a vehicle for the production of
his own games, 80 to 90 percent of which would be sold in Germany (Batty,
2006b):
I wanted to publish limited editions of my own games, so I could actually get
my games published without having to wait till someone else decided to pub-
lish them. I would then be able to send the published games to all the compa-
nies at once and avoid all the legal hassles of disclosures14 since those rules
don’t apply to published games. I hoped other companies would then buy the
rights to these games and republish them in much larger print-runs. Of
course, this didn’t happen, at least not right away [Moon in Tidwell, 1997].
In 1991 Klaus Teuber received his third Spiel des Jahres award — for
Drunter and Drüber, a tile-laying game with a significant bluffing element.
The Deutscher Spiele Preis was awarded to Das Labyrinth der Meister (Kobbert,
1991), a more advanced implementation of the earlier family game Das Ver-
rückte Labyrinth (Kobbert, 1986). This innovative design incorporated a move-
able maze that would lead to a series of successful games based upon the same
mechanic.15 The following year the award was given to Rob Bontenbal’s cycle-
racing game Um Reifenbreite (1991),16 with Teuber claiming the Deutscher
Spiele Preis for Der Fliegende Holländer (1992). Notably, 1992 marked the first
recognition by the Spiel des Jahres jury of designer Reiner Knizia, whose name
would soon become synonymous with German game design. An earlier card
game, Goldrausch (1990), had placed in the voting for the 1990 Deutscher
Spiele Preis, but it was the political negotiation game Quo Vadis (1992b) that
found a place on the shortlist for that year.
Considered the “breakout year for [Reiner] Knizia” (Levy, 2001b), 1992
saw the release of the highly acclaimed auction game Modern Art (1992a),
which would go on to claim the Deutscher Spiele Preis the following year. The
winner of the Spiel des Jahres in 1993 was a reworking of an existing public
domain dice game17 by U.S. designer Richard Borg, entitled Bluff (1993). The
1994 list of contenders for the Deutscher Spiele Preis is a testament to the con-
sistently high quality of the games that were beginning to appear at this time.
Along with the winner, Wolfgang Kramer’s card game 6-Nimmt (1994), were
70 EUROGAMES

the Spiel des Jahres–awarded Manhattan (1994), by Andreas Seyfarth; Stefan

Dorra’s game of deception, Intrige (1994) Ronald Wettering’s exercise in social
negotiation and survival on sinking lifeboats, Rett Sich Wer Kann (1993); and
Knizia’s mathematically-based game of tile placement, Auf Heller und Pfennig
(1994a).
By 1993 a growing awareness of the emergent German design movement
is evident on rec.games.board, bolstered largely by the Avalon Hill reprint of
Adel Verpflichtet. Notably, the company had also published Karl Heinz
Schmiel’s Tyranno Ex in 1992, a game of conflict among dinosaurs that bor-
rowed mechanisms from the designer’s earlier title, Die Macher.18 At the same
time that these German titles were seeing their first English language impres-
sions there was a growing sense of disillusionment with the current state of
the hobby in the USA, as reflected in this post mourning the passing of the
“golden age of board games”:
Now we have the anemic and predictable offerings by Avalon Hill — which
produces games for people who love rules more than they love play — and
repackaged Victorian parlor games (Scattergories, Trivial Pursuit), and brain-
dead teach-your-child-where-Yugoslavia-used-to-be geography quizzes, and,
surprisingly, games don’t sell very well anymore.... It’s a sad comment that the
most interesting and original game produced by an American company in the
last three years was Set,19 which isn’t a very interesting and original game
[Rossney, 1993].
Although such complaints can be heard in hobby gaming circles at any
given time, on rec.games.board there was subsequently an observable increase
in the level of interest in German titles. Reviews of Knizia’s Quo Vadis and
Modern Art (1992a) in May 1993 were followed by a small flurry of enquiries
over where to obtain these and other German games, the scarcity of which
was highlighted by one poster excitedly announcing the discovery of a number
of copies of Ravensburger’s Wildlife Adventure (Kramer and Kramer, 1985)
in a San Diego Animal Park (Pedlow, 1993). Adding to the wider exposure of
German games in the USA, and promoted via the group, 1992 also saw the
first issue of Peter Sarrett’s Game Report, a U.S. based newsletter that echoed
the style and content of Games International and Sumo. Additionally, in an
August 1993 post to the newsgroup, Sarret listed and reviewed a large variety
of games acquired on a trip to Europe (Sarrett, 1993).
In June of 1994 Californian Ken Tidwell established The Game Cabinet
(2000) as an Internet-based monthly magazine and a repository for rules
translations online. Following a visit to the U.K. and a trip to Mark Green’s
Just Games, Tidwell had become a contributor to Sumo. Remarkably, The
Game Cabinet was one of the first 1000 web-sites on the then relatively
unknown World Wide Web:
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 71

Two co-workers, Danfuzz Bornstein and Charlie Reiman, introduced me to

the Mosaic and the nascent World Wide Web. I thought it was a great plat-
form to get the word out about German games (there was no notion of Euro
games in those days; we thought of them as German) [Tidwell, 2008].
The first issue of The Game Cabinet included reviews of Reiner Knizia’s
Modern Art and Klaus Tueber’s early family game Timberland (1989), along
with a rules translation of Die Macher and clarifications for Teuber’s Adel Ver-
pflichtet and Christian Beierer’s game of pyramid construction Tal Der Könige
(1992). The Game Cabinet quickly became the central repository among
English-speaking gamers for information on European games.20
Throughout the early 1990s an increasing number of enthusiastic gamers
in the USA had begun to acquire German games, generally from Games People
Play in the USA, Just Games in the U.K. or through trading with personal
contacts in Germany and Britain (Scherer-Hoock, 2003; Huber, 2008; Sauer,
2008). However, the issue of how to obtain German titles remained a difficult
one. Ray Pfeifer, a Baltimore gamer inspired by a trip to Moon’s Gathering
of Friends, was one of those who had established a successful trading arrange-
ment with Moon’s business partner in White Wind, Peter Gehrmann. In 1994,
thinking to capitalize on the success of Magic: The Gathering as a dealer,
Pfiefer launched R&D Games as an importing mail-order business at the 1994
Gathering of Friends. The growing, but still small, number of European gam-
ing enthusiasts in the U.S. now had a dedicated channel for acquiring German
releases (Scherer-Hoock, 2003).
Meanwhile, the summer 1995 issue of Sumo contained the usual reviews
of games and lively commentary from Siggins and other regulars. Given the
benefit of hindsight, however, the dismissal of one Spiel des Jahres nominee
stands out. Siggins was not overly impressed with Klaus Teuber’s new game,
Die Siedler von Catan, commenting that the game “has neither the depth,
subtlety nor the tactical flexibility to make it a winner” (1995). Even though
hobbyists such as Siggins were closely following the games emerging from
Germany, none could foresee the impact that Die Siedler von Catan would
have on hobby gaming. It was the release of this resource-gathering and devel-
opment game that would change dramatically the perception of German games
within the hobby and mark the coming-of-age of European game design.

Die Siedler von Catan

There is a branch of Mathematics that explores chaos theory. One of the tenants
of the theory suggests that the flapping wings of a butterfly in China could
result in a storm elsewhere in the world. In 1995 a “butterfly” in Germany
flapped and unleashed a storm in the North American market that has
expanded and continues to grow today.— Shapiro, 2003
72 EUROGAMES

In 1995 Kosmos released Klaus Teuber’s latest game, Die Siedler von
Catan. The game combined development, trading and a dose of luck, casting
players as explorers on the fictional island of Catan. Upon release, the game
was an unqualified success in Germany, garnering the 1995 Spiel des Jahres,
Deutscher Spiele Preis and Essen Feather, along with the U.S.-based Origins
Award the following year. Five years after its release, in 2000, the game was
still the best-selling game in Germany (Levy, 2001a). Subsequently it has
inspired a variety of expansions and related games that have sold upwards of
15 million copies worldwide, becoming the best-selling and most widely
known example of the eurogame to date (Curry, 2009).
The first copies of Die Siedler von Catan to enter the U.S. were imported
by Ray Pfeifer’s R&D Games in 1995 and sold at Alan Moon’s Gathering of
Friends that year. Pfiefer imported further copies for Avalon Hill’s annual
convention, Avaloncon, where the game met with an immediate and enthu-
siastic response:
I remember that year the most played game at Avaloncon wasn’t an Avalon
Hill game; it was Settlers.21 I sold them out of the trunk of my car in the
parking lot at the convention. I remember at one point Jackson Dott came out
to find out what was going on [Pfiefer in Scherer-Hoock, 2003].22
Die Siedler von Catan served as the introduction to German games for
many English-speaking gamers (Levy, 2001a). Within weeks of the game’s
release, word was spreading on the Internet via rec.games.board and Ken Tid-
well’s Game Cabinet. The recognition of Die Siedler von Catan as the first
German game to captivate English-speaking gamers en masse is echoed by
the number of players who now fondly recall the game as their introduction
to the genre. Retailer and gaming writer Michael Barnes describes this impact:
We were blown away. It was the best board game we had ever played — it had
dice, cardplay, trading, interaction, drama, a solid civilization building/devel-
opment theme, and it was just a lot of fun to play in a reasonable amount of
time. I did some research on the internet which lead me to discover that there
was the beginnings of a subculture of eurogame enthusiasts ... of course, at the
time, they were called “German games” [Barnes, 2008b].
Gaming writer Greg Schloesser echoes the sentiment:
My life changed ... when I discovered Settlers of Catan at a local hobby store.
We were captivated, and I began seeking out other “European” titles. El
Grande, Euphrat and Tigris and other classics soon were added to my collec-
tion, and I was smitten [Schloesser, 2008a].
Almost concurrently with the release of Die Siedler von Catan, American
game manufacturer Mayfair Games had decided to investigate the possibility
of producing English language versions of some popular German titles. Game
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 73

designer and owner Darwin Bromley had become enamored of German games
and had been importing and selling these on the American market since 1991
(Scherer-Hoock, 2003). Reflecting Mayfair’s association with railway games,
Bromley had imported 1835 (Tresham and Meier-Backl, 1990)23 and
Dampfross, along with a range of games from Dutch company Flying Turtle.
Prices were high due to the cost of import, and the games were simply sold
on, without English rules translations, making for a rather limited market.
Since these factors resulted in less than spectacular sales, Jay Tummelson, an
employee with a history in the role-playing community, suggested including
rules translations with the games, and later that the company consider pub-
lishing English versions (Glenn, 1999b). Subsequently, Tummelson was
charged with obtaining licenses from German manufacturers. Traveling to
Europe, he secured the rights to a variant of Formel Eins (Kramer, 1996a),24
Modern Art, Manhattan, Linie Eins (Dorra, 1995)25 and, somewhat fortu-
itously, the recent Spiel des Jahres winner Die Siedler von Catan. While Tum-
melson argued for the retention of the original German presentation, Bromley
felt that the graphics were not suitable for the U.S. market and commissioned
new artwork before releasing the games in 1996 (Alden and Solko, 2005).

The Rise of German Games

Meanwhile, in Germany the success of Die Siedler von Catan provided
yet more motivation for the games industry:
The great success of Die Siedler von Catan showed the doubters the kind of
financial rewards a good strategy game can produce. As a result, authors, pub-
lishers, and retailers who supported social strategy board games intensified
their efforts [Kramer, 2000a].
The winner of the following year’s Spiel des Jahres and Deutscher Spiel
Preis, and a testament to this renewed effort, was the result of a collaboration
between Kramer and Richard Ulrich, El Grande (1995). Themed around a
quest for dominance in Renaissance-era Spain, and considered the first area
majority board game, El Grande was a surprising winner of the Spiel des Jahres,
since, compared to previous entries, the game was relatively complex. Nev-
ertheless, the game marked the beginnings of a particularly prolific period in
quality design that would last throughout the late 1990s:
It’s hard to overstate the significance of El Grande’s publication. It basically
established a new kind of board game, one in which players strove to have the
majority of pieces in different geographical areas of the board. It proved that
“gamer’s games” could be big sellers and initiated a trend toward such chal-
lenging games which continues to this day.... Finally, coming on the heels of
74 EUROGAMES

the fabulously successful Settlers of Catan, El Grande was the second part of
the one-two punch that established once and for all that Germany was the
source of the finest games in the world [Levy, 2001c].
Certainly the winners of the key German awards over the next few years
continued to push the boundaries of board game systems and mechanics. The
winners of the 1997 Spiel des Jahres and Deutscher Spiele Preis were Werner
Hodel’s game of paddleboat racing, Mississippi Queen (1998a) and Teuber’s
game of tile-laying and exploration, Entdecker (1996)26 respectively. The list
of nominations the following year for both awards provides ample evidence
that game designers working in the German style were experiencing a period
of rapid innovation. Alan Moon’s Elfenland (1998), a simplified version of the
earlier White Wind–published Elfenroads (1992), claimed the Spiel des Jahres;
while Reiner Knizia’s tile-laying game of development in the cradle of civi-
lization, Euphrat and Tigris (1997a), was awarded the Deutscher Spiel Preis.
Moreover, among those games nominated for the 1998 awards are Knizia’s
Durch die Wüste (1998a), a lightly-themed area enclosure game somewhat
reminiscent of Go, Wolfgang Kramer and Horst-Rainer Rösner’s area majority
business game Tycoon (1998),27 and the Hans im Glück reprint of Karl-Heinz
Schmiel’s 1986 game Die Macher.
Ironically, just as German games were about to make the leap to English-
speaking markets, Mike Siggin’s Sumo was coming to an end. With growing
work commitments and a mounting disillusionment with playing games, Sig-
gins was offered an opportunity to sell the rights to Sumo to fellow gamers
Theo Clarke and Paul Evans. Clarke and Evans planned to take their own
magazine, Games, Games, Games, to a more professional level, and Siggins,
on the advice of friends, decided to accept (Dagger, 2008). The quirky fanzine
that had alerted many British gamers to German games was no more:
Overall, I think people liked it. They definitely liked the letters. They liked
the hugeness of the average issue.... They liked the lack of computer games.
They liked lists. They liked Mike Clifford. And generally it was popular
because it was honest, interesting and there was nothing like it. Others
reviewed the German games, but there was a mad level of enthusiasm in and
for Sumo, like a bunch of 600 like-minded gamers meeting for a chat. It must
have been responsible for much of the growth in German gamers in the early
nineties, but who knows? [Siggins in Vasel, 2005c].
Games, Games, Games lasted two years before folding due to financial
failure. Meanwhile, Sumo contributors Clifford, Dagger and How had hatched
a plan for “son of Sumo” (Dagger, 2008). Consequently, with Dagger at the
helm as editor, 1998 saw the first issue of Counter, a magazine with similar
production values and content as Sumo. With a current subscription list of
approximately 700 to 800 (the majority in the USA),28 Counter continues to
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 75

provide in-depth reviews and critical commentary, largely on the European

games market, with a list of contributors that, not surprisingly, reads similarly
to that of Sumo.
Meanwhile, in the USA former Mayfair employee Jay Tummelson, hav-
ing seen the potential of German games in the U.S. market, decided to try
his hand with his own company.29 Tummelson’s approach was to utilize con-
tacts he had made in the German games industry and to partner with them
in producing English-language versions of more popular titles. His company,
Rio Grande, was the first to bring these games to English-speaking markets
with components and artwork identical to that available in Europe. The first
batch of six games was released in April 1998 with Klaus Palesch’s Fossil (1998)
meeting with early success and garnering the Games Magazine Game of the
Year award in 1999.30 At this point, Tummelson was negotiating an extended
print run of existing games and contributing rules translations himself. By
the end of 1999 Rio Grande had brought 20 games to market. In addition to
then-current releases, Tummelson negotiated rights to games previously
unavailable in English, adding successful titles such as El Grande and Man-
hattan to an expanding range. By 2000, 21 of the top 100 games listed by
Games Magazine were produced by Rio Grande, including Best Memory
Game,31 Best Family Strategy Game32 and Game of the Year.33 Since 1998,
Rio Grande games has released over 300 individual games, the majority with
relatively low print runs that serve the growing number of gaming enthusiasts
who have embraced German-style games.
With the availability of European games growing, so too was interest in
the wider gaming community. Like many other interest groups, gamers were
only now beginning to fully appreciate and utilize the Internet as a platform
for information-sharing activities. In 1999 American designer Stephen Glenn
was inspired by a private mailing list of game designers and industry figures
to establish Spielfrieks, a public mailing list devoted exclusively to the discus-
sion of German-style games. In July 2000 Canadian Greg Aleknevicus and
American Frank Branham34 established The Games Journal, an online journal
with a similar focus to that of the print fanzines Sumo and Counter. The site
attracted a number of articles from notable games writers such as Larry Levy
and Greg Schloesser, along with contributions from designers such as Lewis
Pulsipher, Wolfgang Kramer and Bruno Faidutti. With a letters section that
read much like its analog forebears, The Games Journal provided gamers on
the Internet with up-to-date reviews and opinions on the emerging German
gaming scene.
Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling were awarded the Spiel des Jahres
in both 1999 and 2000 with the action points–based games35 Tikal (1999)
and Torres (2000a). The year 2000 also saw the release of Kramer and Richard
76 EUROGAMES

Ulrich’s highly regarded auction game, Die Fürsten von Florenz, Knizia’s Tadsch
Mahal, and Gerd Fenchel’s intricate game of city development La Città. In
2001, however, Klaus-Jürgen Wrede’s game of tile-placement and area major-
ity, Carcassonne (2000), not only won both major German awards but also
garnered enormous international success on a scale that came close to matching
that of Die Siedler von Catan. Carcassonne has spawned numerous expansions36
and a whole raft of associated games, some created by other well-known
designers such as Leo Colovini and Knizia.37 Like Die Siedler von Catan, Car-
cassonne has become regarded as a “gateway game,” a particularly accessible
game that can be used to introduce non-gamers to German-style games. The
year 2001 is also notable for the release of Reiner Knizia’s cooperative game
Der Herr der Ringe (2000a). Published in the U.S. by Hasbro to capitalize on
the success of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, the game was printed in
large quantities, marking the first time that such a complex European-style
design was given wide exposure in the English-speaking mass market.
Another result of the growing availability of eurogames in the USA and
the increased visibility brought about by the Internet was the recognition by
U.S.-based game designers that a distinctive style was emerging, and that the
emulation of that style might be a worthwhile pursuit. In 2001 Americans
Stephen Glenn, Dominic Crapuchettes, and Mike Petty organized the first
Protospiel, a meeting where game designers could playtest games with an
emphasis on German style designs:
The goal was to get game designers together to workshop game ideas. The
name of the convention was chosen because we want to emulate the high
quality of board games that are coming out of Europe (mostly Germany). We
made it very clear that we did not want people to come to the convention
with their latest version of Monopoly or any other roll and move game. Proto-
Spiel was created for game designers who wanted to create games for adults,
not children [Crapuchettes, 2008].
Although the initial event was attended by only a small number of designers,
Protospiel would subsequently provide the development base for a number of
successful games including Glenn’s Spiel des Jahres–nominated Balloon Cup
(2003) and Crapuchettes’ hugely successful party game Wits and Wagers
(2005).

From German Games to Eurogames

By the early 2000s it was becoming increasingly clear that German-style
games were not merely a passing fad but had captured a sustainable portion
of the global hobby gaming market. Although the genre had originated in
 4. From German Games to Eurogames 77

Germany, designers from other European countries had long been active in
the design community.38 As still more designers continued to adopt the general
style, what were once “German games” were now commonly referred to as
“eurogames.”
As Rio Grande continued to leverage established business relationships
to adopt a model of simultaneous publication (Alden and Solko, 2005), new
companies began to spring up to cater to the growing demand for the genre.
In 2002 U.S./French based Days of Wonder began publishing original
European-style games simultaneously in English, French, German and
Korean.39 In 2004 the company was awarded the Spiel des Jahres for Alan
Moon’s Ticket to Ride (2004a), a rail-themed set collection and connection
game that has subsequently seen enormous international success, spawning a
number of sequels40 and expansions.41 In 2003 Utah-based Überplay Enter-
tainment began publishing direct translations of popular European titles
including Ra (Knizia, 1999a), Alhambra (Henn, 2003), China 42 and Hoity
Toity, a re-issue of Teuber’s Adel Verpflichtet.43 Z-Man games, a U.S. company
originally created to resurrect an out-of-print collectible card game, began
publishing translations of successful German games in 2004,44 later incorpo-
rating titles by U.S. designers that were heavily influenced by the European
style.45 Designers working in the USA increasingly opted to incorporate ele-
ments of both design approaches in the production of hybrid games that
blended the Anglo-American taste for highly thematic gameplay with the per-
ceived elegance of European mechanics.46 Hobby games generally began to
reflect the European design style as the influence of the genre spread through
the gaming industry. Even mainstream U.S. manufacturers were not immune
to this influence; in 2006 Mattel released two European-style designs,47 while
Hasbro revised the classic Risk, shortening the playing time and removing the
emphasis on player elimination.48
As eurogames increased in popularity among gaming hobbyists, designs
became increasingly more complex, straying from the family-oriented fare that
had typified early German games. Exemplar of this is Andreas Seyfarth’s game
of colonization and development in the new world, Puerto Rico (2002). Although
too complex to be awarded the 2002 Spiel des Jahres, which for the first time
went to a dexterity game, Villa Paletti (Payne, 2001), Puerto Rico easily claimed
the Deutscher Spiele Preis and, surprisingly, proved more popular with the inter-
national gaming community than that in Germany (Alden and Solko, 2009b).
The Spiel des Jahres continues to award those games that are at the lighter end
of the complexity scale, with winners such as the family-friendly Niagara
(Liesching, 2005); Karen and Andreas Seyfarth’s Thurn und Taxis (2006), a set
collection and connection game themed on the early German Post Office; and
Michael Schacht’s Zooloretto (2007), a board game expanding on the mechan-
78 EUROGAMES

ics of his earlier card game, Coloretto (2003a). Although the jury has always
favored less complex games, more involved games were recognized through a
separate award for best complex game (Sonderpreis Komplexes Spiel ), awarded
in 2006 and 2008 to William Attia’s Caylus (2005) and Uwe Rosenberg’s
Agricola (2007), respectively. The need for a permanent award that acknowl-
edges the increasing complexity of emerging eurogames was met in 2011 with
the establishment of the Kennerspiel des Jahres.
In 2009 the influence of European designs came full circle, with the
Spiel des Jahres awarded to the American-designed and published Dominion
(Vaccarino, 2008), a game that draws heavily on the deck-building mechanics
of collectible card games while also incorporating the broader aesthetics of
eurogame design.49 At the same time, popular eurogames such as Die Siedler
von Catan and Carcassonne began to make substantial in-roads into the main-
stream U.S. board gaming market (Muller, 2009). The most popular of
eurogames, The Settlers of Catan, received coverage in The Washington Post
(Eskin, 2010), The Wall Street Journal (Tam, 2009), The Atlantic (Keys, 2011)
and Wired Magazine (Curry, 2009). In June 2011, versions of the game occu-
pied two out of the top ten spots on Amazon’s list of top selling board games —
a list that was notably devoid of staples such as Monopoly or Risk (Keys, 2011).
Throughout the late 2000s, a number of eurogame titles were successfully
ported to video game consoles. More recently, the rise of touch-enabled mobile
devices, and the concurrent industry shift towards socially-oriented games,
has proven an ideal match for a wide variety of European-style games. In the
space of fifteen years, games that had initially only been of interest to a small
number of hobbyists now seem set to enter the mainstream.
As dedicated gaming hobbyists became aware of the design style emerging
in Germany, it was largely through word of mouth, community uptake and
small start-up companies that these games spread to the broader gaming com-
munity. The fact that awareness of these games was spread in such a way sug-
gests a revolution inspired by the games themselves rather than by the
companies who produced them. Emerging from a cultural context and market
that was geared to produce innovative games for the family demographic, the
aesthetic that originated in Germany has spread to become a significant force
in the niche hobby of board gaming. Not only is this manifest in the genre
now commonly referred to as eurogames, but more generally in the broader
field of tabletop game design. While many hobbyists continue to look to
Europe for the latest releases, the extent of the genre’s influence is seen in the
way it has transformed hobby board and table gaming globally.
 5

The Eurogame Genre

There exists in the world today a game design movement called eurogame
design. Its roots run back to the 1960s, it began flourishing in the 1980s, and
it spread worldwide in the 1990s.— Berlinger, 2009a

The games that began to appear in Germany in the early 1980s, which
were to subsequently influence the world of tabletop game design and play,
bear a number of recognizable traits that distinguish them from other hobby
games and those in the mass-market. Anecdotally speaking, eurogames tend
to be accessible games that privilege the role of mechanics over theme in
gameplay. They typically facilitate indirect rather than direct conflict, de-
emphasize the role of chance, offer predictable playing times, and are usually
of a high standard in terms of component quality and presentation.
In this chapter I wish to step beyond this anecdotal summary to delimit
the type of game classified as eurogames by analyzing a selection of 139 rep-
resentative titles. This list of games is drawn from the winners and the nom-
ination shortlist of the Spiel des Jahres award from 1995, the year in which Die
Siedler von Catan was first published, through to ten years later in 2005, a
time when eurogames had made strong inroads into global gaming culture.
This selection reflects not only the variety of games that fall under the
eurogame banner, but also those that are considered outstanding examples by
a judging panel that oversaw the rise in popularity of the genre.1 Players per-
ceive eurogames as constituting a genre typified by common conventions,
although they may display a wide variety of traits. Consequently, much of
the analysis presented here consists of the type of necessary generalizations
that are common in any discussion of genre. This chapter will highlight the
way in which eurogames typically emphasize accessibility and individual
accomplishment in mechanics, goals and themes. The intent of this chapter,
then, is to develop a clear description of the type of games to which hobby
gamers can point and say “that is a eurogame.”2

79
80 EUROGAMES

Game Elements in Applied Ludolog y

For the purposes of identifying the various game traits that might serve
as genre identifiers in eurogames, I will first use elements of game scholar Aki
Järvinen’s framework, as put forward in his 2009 book Games Without Fron-
tiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. My principle reason
for adopting this model is the way in which it can be utilized to analyze any
form of game. The systemic model that Järvinen describes is highly developed
and broad in scope, addressing game rhetoric, psychology, emotion categories
and player experience. In this chapter I utilize a subset of these ideas that is
most appropriate for this type of formal analysis.
At the heart of Järvinen’s work is the identification of various elements
that can be found within games, providing a framework by which games,
reduced to their constitutive elements, can be analyzed and understood.
Importantly, Järvinen does not claim that these elements are found in every
game, merely that their nature and presence (or lack of ) in a particular example
offers an insight into the structure and form of the game. Järvinen approaches
his analysis from the center of the game system outwards to the periphery of
the play experience and identifies nine such elements, dividing them into
three types: systemic, behavioral and compound. These constitutive elements
are outlined in figure 5.1.
Systemic Elements Components
Environment
Compound Elements Ruleset
Mechanics
Theme
Interface
Information
Behavioral Elements Player
Context
Figure 5.1: Game Elements from Järvinen (2009).
In Järvinen’s terms, systemic elements are those that constitute the game
world in terms of spatial characteristics and elements to be utilized and
configured. Compound elements, including the ruleset, mechanics, interface,
information and theme, are those that link the systemic elements with the
behavioral ones and bring about the dynamic play of the game. Behavioral
elements refer to the player and the context of the game that “make games
essentially a human phenomenon” (p. 29). The examination of these human
elements forms a large part of the latter half of this book, and, as such, I will
set these aside for the moment.
 5. The Eurogame Genre 81

Systemic Elements in Eurogames

Järvinen defines systemic elements as those that make up the game world.
In terms of board games, these are the components that constitute the objects
the player can manipulate through the course of play and the environment
that defines the spatial arrangement of the game. In terms of components,
eurogames typically employ a board, cards, currency and/or various tokens
that can be controlled through the course of play. In this regard, these games
do not differ significantly from other forms of table game. Nor are play envi-
ronments in eurogames functionally dissimilar to those of other board and
table games. Games can be categorized as those with no environment, those
with a miniaturized representation as environment, and those with an entirely
abstracted environment. Games with no environment are typically card or
dice games that have no need of table-based environmental components.3
Closely related to these are games that utilize abstracted boards in order to
assist in play of the game either through visual indicators of key mechanics4
or as a reference for the consistent positioning of other elements.5
The majority of eurogames, however, take place on a miniaturized rep-
resentation of a real-world geographical location6 or a stylized rendering of
an imagined setting.7 In most cases these games employ a map purposely as
a positional reference where spatial relations play a significant role in the game.
Most commonly the game world is accessible to players throughout the game,
though in many tile-laying games it emerges through the course of play.8
Although the environments in these eurogames echo the spatial emphasis of
wargames and Anglo-American hobby board games, they are typically
abstracted and/or stylized to a far greater degree, often falling closer to tra-
ditional abstract games in terms of fidelity to the represented environment.
Noticeably, a number of games utilize spatiality through entirely abstracted
boards with no representation of real or imagined geographical location.9
Although the type of components and the nature of the game environ-
ment in eurogames differ little from other forms of table game, in their aes-
thetics they have come to hold an almost iconic status within the hobby
(Eskin, 2008). Game components in eurogames are typically of a far higher
quality than those commonly found in other commercial games (Sigman,
2007). The use of wood rather than plastic in key components imbues the
games with a sense of quality that has become a design hallmark of the
eurogame. Similarly, the graphical presentation that ties the game’s theme
back to the components is typically of a very high standard. This attention
to quality in the graphic design of packaging and components is reflected in
the recognition of particular artists who work within the field of game illus-
tration.10 Although one can argue that this emphasis on aesthetic appeal does
82 EUROGAMES

not constitute a part of the game’s formal system, the application of high pro-
duction values is one of the defining traits of eurogames, and one that has
had a strong influence on subsequent Anglo-American productions (Sauer,
2008).

Compound Elements in Eurogames

Compound elements create a link between the systemic and behavioral
elements of the game. However, for the purposes of this analysis they can be
discussed in relative isolation. Following Järvinen’s model, the compound ele-
ments of a game consist of the ruleset, mechanics, information, interface and
theme. In the remainder of this chapter I discuss each of these elements, with
the exception of the interface. While acknowledging that it is possible to per-
ceive game components themselves as constituting an interface, like Järvinen
I consider access to these components to be more or less direct; thus I have
elected to exclude them from this discussion (2009, p. 79).

Rulesets in Eurogames
Rules are what games are made from, the abstract raw materials that sep-
arate the contrivance of games from more spontaneous forms of play. In a
broader sense, the rules are the game (Parlett, 1999, p. 3). Like Salen and
Zimmerman (2004, p. 126), Järvinen identifies a number of different rule
forms. While some rules define the initial set-up of the game (the environ-
ment), others describe the ways that players can interact with the system (the
mechanics), the way the system logic functions internally (in the case of board
games, procedures governing component behavior in the environment), and
the over-arching goals of the game. As can be seen from these descriptions,
each of these types of rules is embedded into another element of the game,
an observation that leads Järvinen to conclude that “all different types of rules
have to do with a particular game element” (2009, p. 66). Following this
assertion, while individual rules are not game elements themselves, the ruleset
constitutes an element, as it describes and constrains the behaviors of other
elements within the system.
Before discussing the embodiment of the rules through other elements,
it is important to note a general characteristic of rulesets in eurogames: the
relative simplicity of rules when compared with earlier hobby game designs.
When describing or defining eurogames, writers almost invariably emphasize
the fact that they typically have succinct rules that can be learned in a relatively
 5. The Eurogame Genre 83

short space of time (Pulsipher, 2006; Berlinger, 2009b). This distinction is

particularly evident when eurogames are compared with other forms of hobby
game. Since wargames are, for the most part, founded upon the idea that
games can effectively simulate real or imagined conflicts, they typically involve
numerous complex rules to govern particular situations and influences upon
the conflict to be simulated.11 Role-playing games, although they have in some
cases become increasingly less rule-bound as they have matured, were originally
based upon similar ideas — while characters in early iterations of Dungeons
and Dragons might be fighting mythical beasts in a fantastic realm, the sim-
ulative roots of the genre can be seen in the need to monitor encumbrance
and the logistics of maneuvering a ten-foot pole around a dungeon corner.
Although not derived from this simulative approach to design, collectible card
games rely almost entirely on the implementation of rule exceptions in that
most cards modify the basic rules of the game in some way. Each of these
genres is distinctly marketed towards a core group of players who are content
to absorb the complexities of the rules in order to enjoy the play of the game.
In contrast to these examples, eurogames tend to have relatively simple
and approachable rulesets. As Nick Sauer describes:
The designers of eurogames I felt had moved farther in the art of taking a
complex rule concept and massaging it down to a much simpler rule set. The
reason I would say that the American designs were so fiddly was again the
wargaming heritage. The view was still strongly held that games were sup-
posed to be simulations first and games second. The German game designers
had that order reversed in their heads and, I would argue, thus forced them to
make a rule more elegant and fit better into the game’s flow if they felt the
rule absolutely needed to be present [2008].
This emphasis on the game as a game rather than a simulation is often called
upon in discussions of Anglo-American designs when compared with the
European style. Gaming blogger Mr. Bistro describes this shift as one towards
a “new aesthetic”:
The New Aesthetic rejected the indulgences of older designs, and instead
focused on the mechanics of a game. Rules were streamlined to enhance
playability and to reduce playing time. Now a game’s theme was built around
its rules, and no longer burdened by a need to create levels of simulation the
games of the New Aesthetic felt sleeker. Players took notice and soon terms
like “elegant” were being used to describe game rules [2009].
While there certainly exist some complex titles, a typical eurogame has
a ruleset that is of equivalent complexity to games such as Monopoly. This is
not to suggest that the genre lacks depth. Indeed, it is a trait of many classical
abstract games that they involve the emergence of deep and engaging play
through a small number of rules. It does, however, draw attention to two fac-
84 EUROGAMES

tors that are significant in understanding the nature of eurogames in compar-

ison to other types of hobby game. Firstly, they are far more accessible than
games that have previously attracted the interest of hobbyists. Secondly, the
designers are generally far less concerned with the relationship between theme
and mechanics in terms of modeling the behavior of referent systems. As we
shall see, this latter point is particularly significant as it affects the relationship
between the mechanics and themes of the eurogame.

Mechanics in Eurogames
As Järvinen notes, there is a degree of semantic confusion within game
research and design as to the use of the word mechanic (2009, pp. 247–250).
Designers and game scholars generally use the word mechanic to describe, in
a vague sense, what it is that players do during the play of a game. Salen and
Zimmerman describe the core mechanic of a game as “the essential play activ-
ity players perform again and again in a game” (2004, p. 316). In these terms
the game mechanic describes the principal functional interaction form with
either the game system or other players. In multiplayer competitive games,
this interaction is primarily concerned with the achievement of the game goal,
leading Järvinen to conclude that
Game mechanics is a functional game feature that describes one possible or
preferred or encouraged means with which the player can interact with game
elements as she is trying to influence the game state at hand towards attain-
ment of a goal [pp. 251–252].
In the sense that it is defined here, all games involve one or more mechanics
by which the player can influence the outcome of the game. Through a process
of iterative analysis, Järvinen constructs a list of 40 mechanics that are com-
monly found in games, further delineating between primary mechanics (those
that are available to the player at all times), sub-mechanics (those that are
supportive of the primary mechanics) and modifier mechanics (those that are
available to the player either conditionally or at specific times) (p. 260–263).
One of the distinctive traits of eurogames is the way in which mechanics
are layered in such a way as to create relatively complex systems from a variety
of sub-mechanics. Consequently, and for the sake of clarity, in this analysis
I have chosen to focus on the principal game-defining mechanics and sub-
mechanics that are employed in pursuit of the game goal. Using Järvinen’s
list of 40 mechanics, I have selected the one that best characterizes the primary
mechanics and sub-mechanics of each of the games under examination. Fig-
ures 5.2 and 5.3, then, provide an overview of the principle mechanics
employed in eurogames.
The immediate observation that arises from these results is the degree to
 5. The Eurogame Genre 85

Figure 5.2: Primary mechanics in eurogames.

Figure 5.3: Primary sub-mechanics in eurogames.

86 EUROGAMES

which certain mechanics are dominant within the games analyzed, most
notably choosing, placing and point-to-point movement. Indeed, choosing
is both the most common mechanic and sub-mechanic in this sample. While
placement and point-to-point movement are common in most styles of board
games, the identification of choice as the primary mechanic in eurogames
provides an insight into the way in which these games can be differentiated
from other genres. Eurogames typically offer the player a relatively small num-
ber of actions to take on a given turn, balancing each such that these types
of decisions are considered a defining element of the genre (Saari, 2003; Pul-
sipher, 2006; Berlinger, 2009b).
Clearly, most sedentary games involve meaningful choices that impact
upon the game state. However, I use the term here to describe a specific game
mechanic. As an example, Chess involves the player choosing a move from a
large number of possibilities. However, it would be misleading to consider
choosing as the central mechanic of Chess, even if this is, in effect, what the
player spends the majority of time doing. Chess is a game of displacement, a
goal that is achieved primarily through the mechanics of point-to-point move-
ment and capture (Parlett, 1999, p. 12). While choosing from a large number
of possible moves is implied by the rules of the game, these choices stem from
the possibilities enabled by the principal mechanics. In Järvinen’s terms, the
identification of choice as a mechanic stems from the way in which choice is
explicitly embodied in the rules (2009, p. 385). This distinction is particularly
important, as it highlights restricted choice as one of the key elements of
eurogame designs.
As an example of this, in the game Tikal players explore a region of
jungle in Central America, uncovering temples, locating treasure and attempt-
ing to retain that treasure for themselves in order to score points.12 Within
the game a number of different mechanics are utilized (e.g., placing, point-
to-point movement, exploration, exchanging, controlling and bidding).13 On
a player’s turn they may select from a subset of these mechanics; however, the
choice of actions to employ is restricted by a corresponding cost in “action
points,” of which the player only has 10 per turn. The choice of which actions
to perform in a given turn is the core mechanic of the game, explicitly pre-
sented to the player as a restricted choice. Thus, the decision is not one of
how to employ a particular mechanic but rather which mechanic to employ.
The nature of eurogames can also be understood by considering the
mechanics that are largely absent. Indeed, it is particularly noteworthy that
of the 139 games analyzed here, only two involve conquering14 and one attack-
ing/defending.15 Although it would be misleading to suggest that direct conflict
is entirely absent from eurogames,16 it is a defining trait of the genre that
conflict is characteristically afforded by mechanics that only indirectly affect
 5. The Eurogame Genre 87

Figure 5.4: Tikal quick reference card showing possible choices and their atten-
dant cost in “action points” (courtesy Wolfgang Kramer, Michael Kiesling,
Ravensburger and Rio Grande Games. © Franz Vohwinkel).
88 EUROGAMES

other players. Conversely, a typical Anglo-American hobby game of the 1980s

and 1990s relied heavily on the possibility of directly affecting the position of
other players.
The advent of eurogames marked a shift in hobby gaming from directly
conflicting play to a style that is more broadly identifiable as competitive.
Gaming podcaster Eric Burgess and hobbyist Nick Sauer, speaking of the
mid–1990s, identify this change explicitly:
We were playing Wiz-War, Diplomacy, Machiavelli, Up Front, Magic the Gath-
ering, TV Wars, Family Business, Man-to-Man, Nuclear War, Naval War, Dun-
geonquest, Talisman, Kings and Things, and Illuminati in those days. Yes, we
had Outpost, Acquire, Can’t Stop and some other games (including Shark) that
felt more competitive than confrontational but most of them still had the
“take that” mentality [Burgess, 2008b].
One of the transitions that I distinctly remember going on in my head was the
jump from “how can you do a game on anything that doesn’t involve
conflict?” to “how can you ONLY do games that involve conflict?” [Sauer,
2008].
While this breakdown of typical core mechanics based upon Järvinen’s
work is interesting in the way it highlights the move away from direct conflict,
as a schema broadly applicable to all types of game it can only go so far in
revealing the more specific forms of interaction that typify the genre in com-
parison with other board and table games. As game players who are familiar
with the nuances of various games utilize the term mechanic, they have tended
to establish their own vocabulary to label specific interaction forms. While
these informally agreed-upon categorizations might not fit neatly into a pre-
defined schema, they can shed far more light on the specifics of eurogame
dynamics as they are experienced and understood by players. It would be
helpful then to describe some of the more common “mechanics” as they are
described by players in order to establish a clearer picture of the typical
eurogame.

Common Mechanics in Eurogames

Writer and game designer Yehuda Berlinger lists six examples of game
mechanics that have come to be associated with eurogames — Tile Placement,
Auctions, Trading/Negotiation, Worker Placement/Role Selection, Set Col-
lection and Area Control (2009b). Given that these descriptions arise from
within the hobby rather than from an academic perspective, it is not surprising
to find that some of these mechanics do not have a direct correlation with
those identified within Järvinen’s framework. Auctions can be directly linked
to bidding; tile placement and worker placement to choosing/placing; and
 5. The Eurogame Genre 89

trading/negotiation with trading and conversing. Area control and set collec-
tion are, in terms of Järvinen’s systemic elements, goals rather than mechanics.
Still, these inconsistencies point to the way in which gamers develop their
own descriptions of game systems without the constraints that underpin more
formalist approaches. In this way they serve to tell us more about the style of
game design and the play they encourage than do strictly taxonomical
approaches to analysis. I will briefly clarify what is typically meant by these
terms as they are understood within the hobby gaming community.

Tile Placement
The term tile placement is used to describe the spatial placement of par-
ticular game components as they are constrained by their relationship to the
board or to other components. While the specific components are most com-
monly tiles, the term has come to be used to describe a number of game com-
ponents that are placed in certain configurations.17 Tile placement itself is not
a particularly innovative game mechanic, with records of Chinese domino
play dating back to at least the tenth century (Kelley and Lugo, 2003, p. 10).
Occasional examples surfaced in the mid–20th century, with the most obvious
and successful example being the word game Scrabble.
In terms of modern hobby games, Sackson’s Acquire stands out for its
innovative use of tile placement to simulate the merging of corporations.
Given the influence of Sackson’s work on eurogame designers, it is not sur-
prising to find this mechanic employed frequently within the genre. Acquire
is an example of tile placement constrained by the relationship between the
shared board and individual tiles. Each tile is assigned a grid reference that
defines where on the central board it can be played.18 The restriction of a pre-
existing board is seen in titles such as Euphrat and Tigris (Knizia, 1997a),
Metro (Henn, 1997), and Chinatown (Hartwig, 1999). In each of these exam-
ples other rules govern or inform the placement of tiles in particular configu-
rations. In Euphrat and Tigris, players develop groups of orthogonally placed
tiles that, subject to the positioning of their player tokens, reward the player
with points. In Metro, tiles are played to establish connections between pre-
designated points on the board.19 Finally, in Chinatown, placement is con-
strained by the simultaneous play of cards that indicate spaces where tiles can
be played. Numerous other examples of this type of spatially bounded tile
placement exist within the genre.
Another form of tile placement is one where the players’ tiles form the
game environment itself through the course of play, unconstrained by a pre-
existing board. The most well known example of this type of game is Car-
cassonne. In Carcassonne, player tiles form a geographical representation of a
90 EUROGAMES

Figure 5.5: Tile placement in Euphrat & Tigris (image by Simon Holding, cour-
tesy Hans im Glück).

medieval landscape, with placement constrained by matching the abutting

edges of connected tiles. Other examples that take this mechanic a step further
include Taluva (Casasola Merkle, 2006) and Gheos (Wiersma, 2006), wherein
tiles can be placed over existing tiles to develop a three dimensional landscape,
and Lost Valley (Goslar and Goslar, 2004), where the evolving landscape can
subsequently be traversed and exploited by all players. Klaus Teuber’s Entdecker
(1996) and Kramer and Kiesling’s Java (2000b) are examples of games that
blend both of these forms, in that players draw tiles to place on a constrained
board and in doing so create a representation of a geographical environment.
A final, and increasingly common, form of tile placement game is that in
which players place tiles on their own individual playing space. As is the case
with a shared board, the space may be bounded20 or unbounded.21

Auctions
Auctions are a mainstay of the eurogame genre and are present in a wide
variety of forms.22 In some cases auctions are the core mechanic of the game,23
while more commonly they are implemented as one in a number of interlocking
mechanisms.24 Auctions may involve purchasing resources from the game sys-
tem itself 25 or from other players.26 They may also involve the procurement
 5. The Eurogame Genre 91

of a variety of in-game advantages or actions,27 with those affecting turn order

being common.28 In some cases, both actions and resources are made available
through the auction process.29 While most auctions are for an individual
resource, some are for groups where the value of bids determine the order of
selection of the items.30 Finally, players may be bidding to not receive the
item that is being auctioned due to the negative impact of the resource under
auction.31
The most commonly used form of auction is a variation of the English
auction wherein players bid until such time as only one player is prepared to
pay the accumulated price. However, unlike a classic open-ascending auction,
players typically take ordered turns to bid.32 This form of auction is also com-
mon in a limited form where players only have the opportunity of a single bid,
commonly referred to as a “once-around” auction.33 While in a typical Eng-
lish auction bids are open, games such as Faidutti and Schacht’s Fist of Drag-
onstones (2002), and Alex Randolph’s Hol’s der Geier (1988), employ a sealed
auction where bids are revealed simultaneously. A number of games employ
a Dutch (or reverse) auction, with the price decreasing until such time as a
player elects to purchase it. In the case of Cathala and Faidutti’s Queen’s Neck-
lace (2003), cards drop in price each turn until players elect to buy, while in
Knizia’s Die Kaufleute von Amsterdam (2000b) a mechanical timer with price
increments ticks down until one player stops it and wins the auction.34
The sheer variety of auction mechanics found in eurogames is quite over-
whelming, and the mechanic could almost be considered a genre nominator
itself. The use of auctions combines interpersonal interaction with indirect
player conflict and also serves as an in-game balancing mechanism, as prices
are determined by the amount players are prepared to pay.

Trading / Negotiation
Although trading and negotiation have long been a part of business-
themed games, both within mass-market and hobby gaming, a number of
eurogames implement the mechanic in innovative ways. When discussing
trading in terms of the eurogame genre, this mechanic does not refer to merely
exchanging items of equivalent value with the game system itself, but rather
to the combination of negotiation and trade between players that gives rise
to a living market within the game.
In eurogames trading is typically limited to specific game resources that,
through other design features of the game, are generally of a different value
to individual players. For example, in Die Siedler von Catan players are able
to trade with others on their own turn in an attempt to gather the core
resources required for specific buildings and actions. Dependant upon player
92 EUROGAMES

position and strategy, the specific resources will hold different values. Similarly,
in the card game Bohnanza (Rosenberg, 1997), players trade types of bean
seed on their turn and are often driven to negotiate unfavorable trades or even
give away resources due to the constrained mechanics of the game, which
make some cards near-worthless to them yet of value to others. In games such
as these, although trading can be considered one of the core mechanics, it is
typically limited to particular game resources. Thus a player need evaluate
whether a particular trade is beneficial, given a reasonable idea of the worth
of the item to each player.
More interesting, perhaps, is the type of negotiation seen in games such
as Die Händler von Genua (Dorn, 2001a) and Quo Vadis, where the actions
of other players are negotiable. In a sense, players are not only offering goods
for trade, but also services. In these cases, players must not only determine
the worth of different types of resource for individual players, but also the
value of particular actions. Quo Vadis is an archetypal example of this type
of game where actions on a player’s turn are traded for the promise of a recip-
rocal action on a subsequent turn.
Like auctions, trading and negotiation bring to the table a degree of
competitive interpersonal interaction. They also allow all players to be actively
involved in the game when it is not their own turn to play, reducing the time
spent waiting for other players.35 Finally, by allowing players themselves to
determine the terms of a particular trade, negotiation acts as a game-balancing
feature inasmuch as players who are perceived to be ahead can be constrained
by the nature of the trades imposed by other players.36

Set Collection
Following Järvinen’s schema, set collection more accurately describes a
goal rather than a mechanic, referring as it does to the objective of collecting
related game resources in groups determined by the rules. Still, within the
gaming community it is commonly referred to as a mechanic, perhaps since
its implementation may be many steps removed from the overall goals of the
game. Of games that utilize set collection as a core mechanic/goal, examples
such as Coloretto and Bohnanza focus almost entirely upon the acquisition of
sets that generate points or in-game currency. As with other mechanics, how-
ever, set collection typically forms only one part of a more complex design.
Of the games that feature set collection as one of the central mechanics,
Knizia’s Ra blends the mechanism with auctions, Brunnhofer and Tummel-
hofer’s Stone Age (2008) with worker placement, and Dirk Henn’s Alhambra
(2003) with tile placement. In each of these games the accumulation of specific
sets constitutes the principal criterion for scoring.
 5. The Eurogame Genre 93

Figure 5.6: Player aids showing set collection requirements in Die Siedler von
Catan (left) and Roads and Boats (right) (courtesy Catan GmbH and Splotter).

Many eurogames are built around a model of economic and technological

development wherein basic resources are accumulated in specified sets, with
the objective of converting them to more valuable ones. Although the method
of acquiring these resources varies widely, the general principle remains —
players pursue particular development paths through the acquisition of
resources that enable them to manufacture further resources. In some examples
this process consists of only one degree of separation between the base resources
and the item to be acquired.37 In more complex examples, however, the devel-
opment process is extended, with the acquired resources accumulated in sets
to produce still further resources.38

Area Control
Also described as area majority, area influence and majority control, area
control refers to gaining control of a specific game element through the allo-
cation of resources to that element. The entity to be controlled, the resources
to be allocated and the method of allocation vary from game to game. As
with set collection, area control might more accurately be considered a sub-
goal. Designer Shannon Appelcline identifies three types of majority control
game based upon the element to be controlled: share-based, area-based and
tile-based (2005b). Arguably the latter two of these can be considered varia-
94 EUROGAMES

Figure 5.7: Area control in El Grande (image by Simon Holding, courtesy Hans
im Glück).

tions of the same form, as tile-based refers to the fact that the areas to be con-
trolled are evolving through game play. In cases where control is established
through the allocation of resources over time, the area majority can be con-
sidered an evolution of the auction mechanism.
Share-based majority control games describe those in which control of
game elements is determined by the allocation of funds to accumulate shares
in a given game entity. This model has long been popular in Anglo-American
game designs, most obviously in the 18XX series of games, and eurogames too
have employed share-based majority in rail-themed games.39 However, while
it has occasionally been implemented in eurogames, the mechanic is not
strongly associated with the genre.40
Within eurogames, straightforward area-based control games are far more
common than the share-based model. Although examples are seen in earlier
designs,41 Wolfgang Kramer and Richard Ulrich’s El Grande is typically iden-
tified as the first successful game to utilize the area-based majority mechanic.
In El Grande, players seek to gain control of areas of the board through the
placement of pieces representing caballeros in medieval Spain. The options
for placing these pieces are governed by an auction phase that precedes placement,
with players able to score during specific rounds through the course of play.
Undoubtedly the most successful game to utilize area-based majority is
 5. The Eurogame Genre 95

Carcassonne. The game is an example of tile-based area majority in that tiles

are progressively added to the playing surface to construct an evolving board.
As players place these tiles, they subsequently have the option to play tokens
to assert control over specific areas of the game board as it is created. When
these areas are completed or the game ends, they are scored in a similar way
to El Grande. Other examples of area-based control games include Kardinal
and König (Schacht, 2000), Tikal, and Louis XIV (Dorn, 2005).

Role Selection / Worker Placement

If there is one variety of game mechanic that can lay claim to having
been a direct result of the emergence of eurogames, it is that of role selection
and worker placement. Appearing first as role selection and in later games as
worker placement, this term refers to the mechanic of choosing a particular
type of action during a turn. Importantly, this selection is not made simul-
taneously42 but rather in a progressive manner, with player choice affecting
the options available to subsequent players.
The idea of individual players having distinctive roles within a game can
be traced back to the Hnefatafl family of abstract strategy games and is com-
monly seen in other forms of hobby game.43 However, the first effective imple-
mentation of role selection, where players choose a specific role as a part of

Figure 5.8: Worker placement in Caylus (image by Simon Holding, courtesy

Ystari Games).
96 EUROGAMES

their turn, is generally attributed to Marcel-André Casasola Merkle’s card

game Verräter (1998).44 In this game, players take turns in selecting a role
from a stack of five cards, with each card providing a benefit during a particular
phase of the turn.45 Importantly, and unlike other games that had come before,
since roles are selected in turn, once a given role has been chosen it is unavail-
able to other players. Bruno Faidutti’s highly successful Ohne Furcht und Adel
(2000b) employs the mechanic in an almost identical fashion.46 Role selection
has subsequently been manifest in a variety of ways, most notably in Puerto
Rico 47 and its card game adaptation San Juan (Seyfarth, 2004). In both of
these examples the role selected by the player will be performed by all players,
with the active player receiving an additional benefit.
Worker placement refers to the mechanic of having a number of tokens
that can be allocated to specific places that provide defined actions on the
game board. Although it is commonly perceived as an evolution of the role
selection mechanic, worker placement first appeared at around the same time
in Richard Breese’s Keydom (1998).48 In Keydom, players allocate a number of
worker tokens to areas of the board that provide a variety of resources and
actions. While any player may place as many tokens as they wish on most of
these spaces, hidden values on the underside of the tokens are subsequently
used to determine who receives benefits from the space.49 In later manifesta-
tions of the mechanic, such as the highly successful Caylus, once a particular
location has been claimed, no other player may place there. Combining the
two most common eurogame mechanics, choice and placing, worker place-
ment has quickly become a staple of the genre in the wake of Caylus’ success,
as evidenced by titles such as Stone Age, Die Säulen der Erde (Rieneck and
Stadler, 2006) and Agricola (Rosenberg, 2007).

Weaving Mechanics
In describing these six mechanics that are frequently used in eurogames,
I have not sought to make definitive statements but to suggest some common
design elements that typify the genre. Although particular games are used to
highlight a specific mechanic, in the majority of cases they employ combina-
tions of multiple mechanics in their designs. As noted, mechanics such as tile
placement and set collection are hardly original. However, it is the use of
these mechanics in combination and the variety of ways in which they are
implemented that leads writers to point to the innovative nature of eurogames.
As designer Larry Levy notes:
The genius of the Euro designers is their ability to add subsystems to the basic
mechanics-heavy base of their games. This gives them added depth and color,
 5. The Eurogame Genre 97

Figure 5.9: Simplified diagram of mechanics and sub-goals in Die Siedler von
Catan.
98 EUROGAMES

Figure 5.10: Die Siedler von Catan board during play (image by Simon Hold-
ing, courtesy Catan GmbH).

making them, in my mind at least, considerably more interesting than pure

abstracts [2007].
As an example of this layering of mechanics we can refer back to Järvi-
nen’s model in analyzing a relatively simple (yet archetypal) eurogame such
as Die Siedler von Catan. Die Siedler von Catan is a 3 to 4–player game in
which players attempt to settle and develop the fictional island of Catan. The
overarching goal of the game is to be the first player to accumulate 10 victory
points, which, in Järvinen’s terms, constitutes a race goal. The accumulation
of victory points can be achieved in a variety of ways: the construction and
upgrading of buildings, the collecting of soldier cards, the development of an
extensive road network, and the possession of specific cards that provide
points.
Figure 5.9 details the various mechanics that are employed and the sub-
goals present in a typical turn of the game. As can be seen, players perform
a wide variety of mechanics in pursuit of the sub-goals that contribute to the
eventual overarching goal. On any given turn a player will perform the oper-
ation of dice-rolling, conversing, information-seeking and contracting in the
form of negotiation, trading with both other players and the game system
and allocating resources to either purchase or build game elements. Coupled
with this is the random determination of resource production that establishes
 5. The Eurogame Genre 99

a fluctuating resource market within the game. The result is a combination

of interlocking mechanisms that combine to produce a particular gestalt expe-
rience. As gaming writer Jonathan Degann notes:
Games such as Puerto Rico, Power Grid, Goa, and Settlers of Catan cannot
readily be understood in terms of their component mechanisms nor summa-
rized by a central mechanism that drives all others. The cogs of each mecha-
nism are too tightly meshed [2008].
The principal reason for deconstructing this game is to point out both
the variety of mechanisms and the complex relationship between mechanics
and goals. To re-emphasize an earlier point, what makes this observation so
significant is that Die Siedler von Catan is, from a player perspective, a relatively
simple game with a few key choices that disguise the complexity of the game
system. While many eurogames employ this interweaving of mechanics in
innovative ways, their designers typically bury these multipart systems in such
a way as to keep the gameplay itself relatively simple. This emphasis on acces-
sibility is a defining trait of the eurogame genre.

Goals in Eurogames
A game’s goal is a central feature of its formal structure. When players come
together to play a game, the goal is at the centre of the magic circle, the pole
that holds aloft the circular tent of the game while the players are inside the
structure, at play with one another. The goal sustains their interest, their
engagement and their desire.— Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 258

If there is one element that is the most useful in both understanding and
playing a game, it is the goal. The goal, as it is prescribed by the ruleset, pro-
vides the sense of challenge that drives the movement of the game forward.
As a motivating force, it constitutes the principal intrinsic reason to engage
with the mechanics of the game. Whether players achieve this over-arching
goal or not results in the quantifiable outcome that separates casual play from
a structured game.50
Typically when discussing the goal of a given game it is the endgame
goal that is being considered. While the over-arching goal of all competitive
games is, ostensibly, to achieve the winning condition through employment
of the game mechanics, during the course of the game many sub-goals are
established, either by the rules (implicitly or explicitly) or internally by players
themselves. As an example, while the over-arching goal of a chess game is to
capture the king (or render it immovable), a player may adopt numerous sub-
goals on their way to this (e.g., capture the opponent’s queen, protect their
100 EUROGAMES

own king, etc.). Throughout the course of play, players are given the oppor-
tunity to work towards the game goals through the application of the various
game mechanics. Thus the game goals shape the way players experience the
game inasmuch as they emphasize a particular use of those mechanics. Build-
ing on the work of Staffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen (2005), Järvinen
describes 32 goal categories that are commonly encountered in games. Apply-
ing these categories to this sample of eurogames demonstrates the ubiquity
of accumulation as a quantifying endgame goal within the genre.
As is clear from figure 6.11, the over-arching goal of a large proportion
of eurogames is the accumulation of a particular game element, typically vic-
tory points and/or game currency. Notably, this accumulation is not quantified
in the sense that the attainment of a specific amount grants the player vic-
tory — in Järvinen’s terms this would be considered a race goal — but by a
comparative measure at the game’s conclusion. Eurogames commonly feature
combinations of sub-goals that together contribute towards an accumulation
of a particular game element, commonly abstracted to a points system. Indeed,
the ubiquity of this design approach within the genre is reflected in the com-
monly used term “kramerleiste” to describe a scoring track that often encircles
the board.51 Thus this distinction marks the outcomes of most eurogames as
being measured by comparative performance rather than qualified accom-
plishment.
To say that accumulation, rather than accomplishment, is the typical
overarching goal for a eurogame is to overlook the sub-goals of the game. As
Björk and Holopainen note, goals in games constitute a hierarchy, with the
highest order goal supported by a variety of sub-goals that are either explicitly
identified within the game rules or are implicit in the strategic possibilities

Figure 5.11: Quantifying (endgame) goals in eurogames.

 5. The Eurogame Genre 101

encountered during play (2005, p. 321). So while it may be accurate to suggest

that the goal of most eurogames is accumulation, this reveals little about the
underlying sub-goals and mechanisms that characterize the genre, and thus
the variety of games and play experience that are afforded.
Although games typically employ a variety of sub-goals, the identification
of the principal sub-goal can be described as the goal implicitly expressed
through the possibilities made available by the core mechanics. In figure 6.12
Järvinen’s goal categories are employed in the identification of the principal
sub-goal that is afforded by the core game mechanics.
The observation that can be made from this analysis is that there exist a
wider variety of sub-goals underlying the overarching goals of accumulation
previously identified. The diversity of these goals is further highlighted by
the fact that they incorporate no less than 19 of the 32 goal categories that
Järvinen describes as commonly occurring in games. Notably, the goal of gain-
ing ownership of in-game elements is the most common of these sub-goals.
It is also interesting to note the degree to which the majority of the goal verbs
identified here describe achievements in relation to the game system rather
than the other players. Sub-goals such as gaining ownership, configuration,
connection and traversal, in combination with overarching goals of accumu-

Figure 5.12: Principal sub-goals in eurogames.

102 EUROGAMES

lation, emphasize competition rather than conflict. That is to say that player
sub-goals are typically not in direct conflict with each other. This distinction
has important ramifications for the nature of the game as the players experience
it and is another significant characteristic that typifies the eurogame genre.

Multiplayer Solitaire — Players and Goals

Björk and Holopainen’s examination of the way that specific types of
goal formulation shape the relations between players in a game differentiates
between a number of goal structures (2005, pp. 277–338). As I have shown,
goals in eurogames are differentiated by a focus on performance within the
context of the game system itself rather than through direct conflict with
other players. Generally speaking, the overarching goals of most eurogames
are symmetrical. They can be described as “goals that several different players
have that can be generalized to fit the same definition without changing the
structure of the individual goal definitions” (p. 333). In the case of the typical
eurogame, this goal might be “accumulate the largest amount of resource X
by the end of the game.” Clearly in this situation player goals are not only
symmetrical but also incompatible; it is not possible for all players to achieve
the goal.
However, as players progress through the game, they are called upon to
establish their own sub-goals in pursuit of the overarching goal. Since there
is typically significant freedom of choice over how to achieve the overarching
goal, the strategies and tactics that can be employed tend towards the asym-
metrical (Björk and Holopainen, 2005, pp. 334–335). Notably, while these
goals may be conflicting, the paucity of mechanics available that directly
impact upon the position of competitors means that players can concentrate
on their own performance within the game. As Järvinen notes, using the
example of Ticket to Ride, there is a tendency then for the conflicting higher-
order goals to be set aside in the player pursuit of individual optimization
(2009, p. 131).
As an example, consider the popular game Carcassonne. As mentioned
previously, Carcassonne is a game of tile laying and majority control. In the
game, players take turns placing a square tile on the table according to specific
rules of configuration. As these tiles are placed, they form regions of fields,
cities, roads and priories. When a tile is placed, a player has the option to also
place one of their limited number of tokens on the tile to claim ownership
of the region. Over subsequent turns they can build upon these individual
regions, with the eventual endgame scoring dependent upon their size. Impor-
tantly, players cannot place tokens in a region that is already controlled by
 5. The Eurogame Genre 103

Figure 5.13: Carcassonne (image by Simon Holding, courtesy Hans im Glück).

another player (though they may at a later stage attempt to connect two regions
and share control with another player).
In this case the principal sub-goal of the game is the ownership and
expansion of regions to increase the eventual comparative score that is the
overarching goal of the game. As play of the game unfolds, the emergent sub-
goals for each individual player become increasingly differentiated from those
of their opponents. It is from these asymmetrical sub-goals that the tactics
and strategies of the game emerge. A player may adopt a longer-term strategy
that focuses on joining regions such that both are awarded the associated
points; however, there is no opportunity to directly reduce the number of
points scored by another player. Although player sub-goals can potentially
come into conflict with those of other players — indeed, Carcassonne can be
played in an extremely cutthroat manner by limiting an opponent’s scoring
opportunities — they are not inherently bound to the zero-sum model of direct
conflict. It is common in games with more than two participants for players
to work together to expand regions in order to share the associated points.
Interestingly, while this type of emergent non-conflicting goal asymmetry
is one of the hallmarks of eurogame design, it is also associated with one of
the principal criticisms of the genre. In extreme examples, such as Die Fürsten
von Florenz and Goa (Dorn, 2004), the mechanics that do allow interaction
with other players52 comprise such a small part of the game when compared
104 EUROGAMES

with the core system of individual optimization that many in the hobby gam-
ing community have suggested these games could be described as a multiplayer
form of solitaire.
While these examples are somewhat extreme, the combination of over-
arching goals of comparative performance and mechanics of indirect influence
is one that is seen in the majority of eurogames to some degree. Clearly it is
important to recognize that these observations are by necessity somewhat gen-
eralized, but together they serve to establish an overall sensibility of creative
endeavor rather than destructive confrontation. Not surprisingly, this sensi-
bility is typically carried through into the theme of most eurogames.

Theme in Eurogames
In eurogames, the mechanics are the heart of the game; the theme is icing to
help market the game.— Berlinger, 2009b

There exists an ongoing debate within the board gaming hobby over the
relative importance of theme and mechanic. The debate mirrors a theoretical
clash that emerged within the academic field of game studies in the early 21st
century. The so-called narratology/ludology debate initially emerged from
two differing perspectives on how digital games — and games more gener-
ally — should be studied. To summarize this extensive and far-reaching dis-
cussion, the narratological53 position proposed that games might be studied
as a form of narrative, focusing on the theme and stories produced during
play. Conversely, the ludologist claim was a formalist one, which argued that
games needed to be analyzed on their own terms — that is, through the abstract
systems they encompass.54 Dismissing the study of games through the lens of
literary theory, so-called “radical” ludologist Markku Eskelinen argues:
Stories are just uninteresting ornaments or gift-wrappings to games, and lay-
ing any emphasis on studying these kinds of marketing tools is just a waste of
time and energy [2001].55
As Eskelinen suggests, theme and story are clearly not constitutive elements
of a game, as evidenced by sports and the myriad of abstract table games that
remain playable and enjoyable despite the omission of an explicit theme.
However, as Järvinen argues, the ornamental nature of game themes do have
consequences for player experience (2009, p. 21).56 Describing the theme as
a “metaphor for the ruleset,” he proposes that in creating such a metaphor,
an extra level of meaning is created “for everything that happens in the game”
(p. 74). Furthermore, the existence of this metaphor has implications for the
 5. The Eurogame Genre 105

player themselves since they are positioned as actors within the metaphor,
typically charged with a thematic goal which overlays the functional one:
In practice, thematization consists of a set of communicative techniques with
which the ruleset and the elements it governs is framed towards the meanings
... that are pursued [p. 76].

In the earlier discussion of goals, I noted that the functional goal of many
eurogames is the accumulation of game elements, typically currency or points.
The accumulation of these in-game elements is a measurement of the com-
parative success or failure of the player in performing the game mechanics in
the context of the game system. The application of theme to these mechanics
and goals, while not strictly necessary, serves not only to make the game more
readily understandable, but also provides the player with a role around which
their actions within the game can be contextualized. In short, it imbues in
the player a sense of meaning for all actions taken in the game and, more
importantly, frames those actions in terms of another system. Consequently,
the referent system around which the theme is based, and the thematic goals
pursued by the players, are important elements of any particular game design.
Theme, when present in board games, is relayed through a number of
game elements, primarily the contextual backstory offered on the box and
rules, and the graphic design of packaging and components.57 In addition to
graphic presentation, the game box will usually introduce the player to the
backstory of the game through a description of the theme and the player’s
role and goals. For example, from the English translation of the game Die
Händler von Genua:
Genoa, in the middle of the 16th century, is the largest trading city in the
Mediterranean. The many trading houses compete to be the richest and most
profitable. But to be successful, they must sometimes cooperate.
The players take the roles of traders in Genoa. They fulfill orders, deliver
messages, and take ownership of important buildings in the city. Of course,
this is not possible without the help of the other traders. And that can cost
money ... and other valuable goods! [Dorn, 2001b].
In terms of the actual gameplay, Die Händler von Genua reflects the
theming of the game relatively closely. Players travel around a board that bears
a stylized top-down representation of the city of Genoa,58 delivering goods
and messages to specific buildings, which they may also purchase. Throughout
the game a series of negotiation rules allow players to influence the actions of
other players by bribing them to visit specific locations. In this sense the
theme serves to support the mechanical aspects of the game, and it is difficult
to imagine one without the other.
Although the example of Die Händler von Genua is useful in describing
106 EUROGAMES

Figure 5.14: Delivering goods and messages in Die Händler von Genua (image
by Simon Holding, courtesy Alea and Rüdiger Dorn).

the way that theme serves to complement game mechanics and goals, the close
marriage described here is somewhat atypical for a eurogame. The abstraction
of accumulation as an overarching goal appears to free designers from such
close adherence to theme — to the degree that many have classified eurogames
as being largely abstract games with themes that are applied late in the design
process (Aleknevicus, 2004; Faidutti, 2005b; Pulsipher, 2006). Indeed, Greg
Aleknevicus goes so far as to describe the loose application of themes in
eurogames as fraudulent59:
The wholesale grafting of a theme onto a set of mechanics is dishonest if those
mechanics have no real world connection to that theme. Can a game really be
about exploring the Amazon if it can easily be re-themed to the terror of the
French Revolution? Is it realistic to simply add floors to an existing skyscraper?
Did ancient explorers really decide the orientation of the islands they discov-
ered? [2004].
Often referred to as an exemplar of this approach is mathematician
turned designer Reiner Knizia, whose games commonly appear as abstract
exercises with only a circumstantial relationship to the theme proposed by the
artwork and background. One of many examples to be found in Knizia’s
ludography is that of Ra. The box cover of the English translation describes
the game and the players’ roles:
 5. The Eurogame Genre 107

The game spans 1500 years of Egyptian history. Seek to expand your power
and fame by influencing Pharoahs, building monuments, farming on the Nile,
paying homage to the gods and advancing the technology and culture of the
people [Knizia, 2005].
Despite the suggestion of a sweeping historical saga, Ra is a relatively straight-
forward game of bidding and set collection, with the various achievements
described in the backstory referring to sets of tiles that players seek to collect
through a series of auctions. Evidence of this somewhat tangential relationship
between theme and mechanics is found in the game Razzia! (2004a), another
Knizia game published five years after Ra. In Razzia! players are cast as the
heads of mafia families who seek to accumulate wealth before the arrival of
police, who terminate the game round. Notwithstanding these seemingly
incompatible themes, Ra and Razzia are, with some small changes, essentially
the same game in terms of mechanics.60 A similarly loose relationship between
game mechanics and theme in eurogames can be seen in many games that
have been re-issued with new themes.61
Given the broad range of mechanics in eurogames, one might expect
that this variety would be reflected in the range of themes that are applied to
them. For the purposes of identifying the dominant themes in eurogames, I
have broken the analysis of theme down into two elements. Firstly, there is
the broader thematic context through which the ruleset is framed, which I
term the thematic model. Secondly, there is the motivation implied by this
theme, the implicit role that draws the player into the world of the game and
provides their actions with a context. This I term the thematic goal. In other
words, the thematic model is the world into which the player is transported,
while the thematic goal provides the fictional motivation to pursue the goals

Figure 5.15: Thematic models in eurogames.

108 EUROGAMES

of the game. In concert, these elements reveal much about the nature of the
eurogame genre.
Figure 5.15 provides a diagram of the various thematic models that can
be observed in the games under analysis here. For the purposes of this analysis,
these models were largely derived from the contextual backstory and graphic
design of the game. If we are to consider theme, at least partly, as a constituent
element of the eurogame genre, an immediate observation that can be made
from this sampling is the degree to which history provides a thematic backdrop
for many titles.62 Setting aside those games that are not themed in any way,
historical themes constitute 65 percent of all remaining games. In comparison
with Anglo-American forms of hobby game, while fantasy themes are present
in a significant number of titles,63 science fiction is notably under-
represented.64 Still, despite the dominance of historical titles, the thematic
frames presented here constitute an eclectic mix.
Figure 5.16 indicates the thematic goals as they are presented to the player

Figure 5.16: Thematic goals in eurogames (goals as presented to the player

through backstory).
 5. The Eurogame Genre 109

through the contextual backstory and the thematic aim as proposed by the
rules. This is not information taken from the goals as they are presented within
the game rules themselves, but by the description of play typically offered on
the game’s box and/or as an introduction to the ruleset. Immediately apparent
from this data is the number of titles that do not explicitly describe a goal in
the context of the game’s thematic model. Once again setting aside those
games that are entirely abstract, a number of the games analyzed are overlaid
with a theme that has no coherent relationship with the game’s mechanics,
and thus no thematic goal is presented. In these cases the theme does simply
serve as “gift wrapping,” and the game system itself bears a largely arbitrary
relationship to the suggested theme. In examples such as Hol’s der Geier, 6
Nimmt! and Coloretto, animals appear on the packaging and cards, but the
application of theme essentially ends there.65 As Bruno Faidutti has noted,
these games tend to lie at the simpler end of the design spectrum:
Some games, mostly those based on a single and simple mechanism, can easily
have their setting changed, because it’s just a setting and not a real theme, and
they don’t need it to work.... When games are more complex, and involve
many game systems, the theme becomes much more than a background set-
ting. It becomes what gives a meaning to the game’s action, what makes the
game coherent — and this is true not only for the games that were designed
starting from the theme [2005a].
Following Faidutti’s assertion, it is not surprising to find that theme is
consistently present in the more complex games analyzed. Among those games
that do offer a thematic goal, the emphasis upon individual achievement that
was identified in the functional goal rules is reinforced. Thematic goals that
emphasize goals-of-self, such as building, development and the accumulation
of wealth, are commonplace. Furthermore, as with the functional goals and
the mechanics underlying them, there is a distinct paucity of goals that suggest
direct conflict.66 While a theme is often only loosely woven into the overall
fabric of the typical eurogame, in the vast majority of cases the emphasis upon
comparative achievement is carried through from the mechanics to the the-
matic goals. As varied and eclectic as their themes are, the central essence of
games that charge players with goals-of-self and resolve through comparative
performance remains.
Although theme might be considered arbitrary in analyzing the behavior
of a game system, it is an important element in terms of both marketing and
player experience. For a publisher, theme is an important factor in attracting
the target audience to purchase a particular title, while for players it can func-
tion to draw them into the fictional world of the game and thus enhance the
player’s experience. As with mechanics, the most notable observation con-
cerning the presence of theme in eurogames is the degree to which particular
110 EUROGAMES

subject matter is not present. Direct conflict particularly is rarely called upon
to motivate players as a thematic goal. Instead, the emphasis is typically upon
individual achievement, with thematic goals such as building, development
and the accumulation of wealth being prevalent. While eurogames commonly
employ history as a thematic backdrop, they tend to focus on political and
economic aspects of the period they draw upon, rather than the ideological
and political clashes. It is also notable that eurogames tend not to draw on
the fictional settings of science fiction and fantasy as commonly as Anglo-
American hobby games do.
The emphasis on historical and economic themes is a significant trait of
eurogames, as it affects their positioning in the marketplace. Unlike Anglo-
American games that often focus on niche interests (historical conflict, science
fiction, etc.), eurogame themes are arguably more accessible to a broader mar-
ket. While a sustained interest in fictional genres, such as science fiction and
fantasy, is perhaps a requirement for enjoying a game tightly themed around
these settings, the loose application of generic subject matter, such as history,
business and the natural world, requires little player investment in the thematic
background in order to engage with the game. As discussed above, this
approach to theme is one of the key criticisms of the genre, though given the
roots of eurogames in family gaming, this emphasis on accessible themes is
not surprising.

Information in Eurogames
The vast majority of eurogames are sequential in nature, meaning that
players make decisions in turn, based upon information they receive from the
actions of other players and the current game state as it is represented by the
environment and components.67 As such, from the perspective of each indi-
vidual player, new information is added to the game system on each turn, an
iterative pattern that simulation designer Richard Duke describes as “pulses”
(1974, p. 40). In the context of Järvinen’s framework, these pulses establish
an evolving relationship between game information and other game elements
that constitutes the “fuel of meaning” distributed between the self, others and
the game system (2009, p. 71).
In discussing the nature of games, writers commonly refer to the dis-
tinction between perfect and imperfect information, terms borrowed from
mathematical game theory. Games of perfect information are those in which
the player not only has access to all information regarding the game state, but
also all the previous and potential actions taken by other players, along with
the related consequences.68 Examples of games of perfect information include
 5. The Eurogame Genre 111

traditional abstracts such as Chess and Go. Within the genre of eurogames,
perfect information games are rare, although examples do exist.69 Most
eurogames are games of imperfect information, although the type of infor-
mation and the way it is hidden varies a great deal.
In games where information is hidden by the game system, a random
element is introduced to increase variety while simultaneously rendering the
game less susceptible to any conclusive analysis. A deck of hidden cards or
tiles is a common example. In Carcassonne players draw from a stack of face
down tiles which are placed to form the environment of the game; while in
Puerto Rico the plantation tiles that are available for purchase each turn are
initially randomized and hidden, only being revealed at the beginning of each
turn. In Agricola a series of actions are progressively made available to players
from round to round. Although the nature of these actions is known, the
exact order in which they will be made available is not, thus adding unpre-
dictability to an otherwise relatively procedural game.
When individual players hold specific information, a game is far less sus-
ceptible to logical analysis, since a player is not aware of every possibility and
consequence of other players’ actions. Game elements that are distributed to
individual players can then shape the strategic and tactical possibilities avail-
able to them as they progress through the game. Many eurogames employ a
privately held hand of resource cards or tiles,70 while others employ such hid-
den elements as currency,71 points72 and bonus cards.73 In some cases player
sub-goals are also held privately.74 As Appelcline notes, the nature of privately
held information is such that it tends to add a level of meta-communicative
interpretation to the gameplay, as players may attempt to deduce or infer cer-
tain information through careful observation of another player’s behavior
and/or actions within the game (2003). Significantly, when particular infor-
mation is held by the game system it introduces purely random elements to
the game, and luck enters the system.

The Role of Chance

The relationship between luck and skill is one that has long been of
interest to game scholars. Roger Caillois, in classifying differing types of
games, refers to games of skilled competition as agôn, noting that games
infused with this quality have as their raison d’etre “for each player to have
his superiority in a given area recognised” (1958, p. 15). To games of chance
he ascribes the term alea, appropriating the Latin term for dice games. Caillois
acknowledges that most games offer up a combination of these two forms,
and for the most part eurogames employ an element of both skill and chance.
112 EUROGAMES

Skill, of course, is called upon by the various mechanics discussed earlier,

allowing players to affect their position within the game. The way that random
elements are implemented when compared with other forms of hobby gaming
bears a little closer examination.
Greg Costikyan has discussed the attitude within western culture that tends
to devalue games the more that they employ chance in determining the out-
come of the game (2009). Games of pure chance are often only considered inter-
esting inasmuch as they offer an opportunity for wagers or serve to introduce
young children to the practice of formal game play.75 Costikyan specifically
describes eurogames as a genre that “prizes strategy and planning,” yet, perhaps
surprisingly, it is rare to find examples of eurogames that do not contain some
element of chance. Notably it is the particular way in which chance is imple-
mented that offers a potential distinction between the eurogame and other forms.
The role of chance in eurogames is typically mitigated through a shift
in the chronology of random events that are presented to a player. Writer
Greg Aleknevicus identifies this approach with an explicit comparison to
American-style games:
In American hobby games, a player will perform an action and then random
chance will determine the outcome. For example, in Risk, I decide to attack
the Ukraine from Northern Europe, then I roll dice to see who wins. In Euro-
pean games, random chance will determine the options and the player then
decides which to choose. For example, in Settlers of Catan, I roll the dice to
see what resources I receive, then I decide how I will trade/spend these
resources. To my mind, this is a far better way to differentiate the two styles of
games [2008].
Although the distinction Aleknevicus makes here is useful, it is problematic in
that, despite its iconic status as the most well known eurogame, Die Siedler von
Catan is a relatively rare example of the genre because it employs dice as a ran-
domizer—an inclusion that has up until quite recently not been favored in typical
eurogame designs (Pulsipher, 2006).76 While the comparison to Risk is valid,
and indeed can be expanded to include the typical structure of many hobby
wargames and early role-playing games, Aleknevicus fails to take into account
collectible card games that offer a similar chronology. Still, these small issues
notwithstanding, Aleknevicus’ observations do ring true for the vast majority
of eurogames, in that luck is typically mitigated by having random factors pre-
sented in the game before the player makes decisions. As Berlinger describes:
Many eurogames randomize the resources available during each round or each
game. Note that you usually know the available terrain and resources BEFORE
you take an action, and so can use this information to plan your strategies,
rather than the dice, cards, or spinners occurring AFTER or AS you take an
action to determine if you have succeeded [2009b].
 5. The Eurogame Genre 113

Once again, the reasons for this differing approach lie in the simulative
roots of Anglo-American hobby gaming. The nature of armed conflict, at
least on a strategic or operational level, is such that the outcome of individual
actions cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. In order to accurately
simulate a particular battle or operation, a wargame must account for this
lack of unpredictability. Of course, this is not to suggest that the outcome of
a wargame is randomly determined, since players are at least notionally aware
of the statistical probabilities underlying a particular decision. However, the
short-term outcome of any given decision cannot be completely certain. As
hobby gaming evolved and role-playing games appeared, this model of com-
bat — a decision followed by a randomly determined outcome — became the
dominant model.77
The designers of early eurogames, on the other hand, were not design-
ing simulations, they were designing games for the family market. Conse-
quently, random factors are employed to heighten variability and to embellish
the decision-making process. As long as these random factors are balanced,
their overall effect can ideally be mitigated through skilful play. Costikyan
uses the example of Torres to highlight how the random drawing of cards
adds color to decision-making without unduly influencing the eventual out-
come:
The action cards in Torres allow players to do different things but, at least a
priori, none of the actions they permit is obviously better or worse than the
others. In addition, to draw a new action card, a player must forgo taking
some other action in the game, so the question of whether or not to draw a
card becomes a strategic concern. Chance is not entirely eliminated through
this scheme, however; in a particular strategic situation, drawing a new action
card might provide you with an ability that is precisely what you need at this
moment, or something that is of no immediate benefit — and so luck contin-
ues to play a role [2009].
Luck is present in most games, and those being discussed here are no
exception. In eurogames, where particular emphasis is placed upon the
mechanics of choosing, the ability to review the result of a random process
before making a decision ensures that players have a sense of control over
their own progression within the game. Importantly, it is not necessarily the
case that this design element has any direct correlation with the role that skill
plays in a particular game,78 but, as Salen and Zimmerman point out, player
perception of random elements is defined not so much by the mathematics
of probability that underlie them, but by the way these events are implemented
(2004, p. 175). In the case of eurogames, the perception of control brought
about by shifting the chronology and structure of random elements can be
seen as a defining trait of the genre.
114 EUROGAMES

Maintaining Player Involvement

In many eurogames, designers appear to have deliberately set out to rem-
edy problems associated with players being removed from, or losing interest
in, a game due to their poor performance. In the case of the former, it is very
rare within the genre to find games that include player elimination, a common
feature in many hobby and mainstream designs. In the vast majority of
eurogames, all players are involved with the play of the game until the end
of the game, as designers of eurogames have adopted a number of techniques
for maintaining player involvement in a game until the closing moments.
In games that focus upon accomplishment of a specific goal it is often
the case that the eventual winner is readily identifiable long before the cessation
of play. The designers of eurogames, despite shifting the goal focus to that of
accumulation, face a similar problem in that any openly scored game will see
some players leaping ahead while others trail behind. The simplest solution
to this problem is that the element to be accumulated (e.g., points, currency)
be held in secret. The obvious problem with this is that since the distribution
of these resources is typically public they are susceptible to tracking, intro-
ducing a cumbersome memory element to the game. A number of games do
feature this solution,79 while others partially solve the problem by having
some of the scoring commodity distributed in secret so that players can develop
a rough idea of the position of their competitors without being entirely certain
of the outcome.80 Finally, a significant number of games delay scoring until
the cessation of play. In cases such as these, the points can be calculated from
careful observation of other players’ positions, but the required calculations
make the task tiresome for all but the most determined players.81
Another solution to this issue lies in what Berlinger terms “cascading
points” (2009b). This practice is that of distributing smaller numbers of points
at the beginning of the game and escalating either the quantity or frequency
of distribution as the game progresses. A simple example of increasing the
availability of points as the game goes on is found in games such as Union
Pacific and Alhambra where a draw card pile is seeded with cards that bring
about a scoring round. In both of these games the cards are added to the draw
pile in such a way that scoring rounds occur more frequently towards the end
of the game.
A number of eurogames require players to build what might be termed
a “point-scoring engine,” whereby it is only possible to score small amounts
in the beginning of the game, with these increasing as the game comes to a
climax. In examples such as Puerto Rico and Age of Steam (Wallace, 2002),
players are developing systems for the shipping of goods. At the outset of the
game the quantities of goods that can be moved are relatively small. As the
 5. The Eurogame Genre 115

game moves forward, a player’s ability to move goods increases, with tension
at the endgame emerging from the large scoring opportunities afforded by
larger shipments. One of the perceived issues with this type of game system
is the tendency for those who have developed the more efficient engine to pull
further and further ahead from the other players, a problem referred to as
having a “runaway leader.” To combat this, a number of games deliberately
employ systems that benefit the player in the losing position (or hinder the
leader) in order to maintain tension. For example, in Funkenschlag (Second
Edition) (Friese, 2004) the player who has the lowest number of points at the
beginning of each round is granted the first opportunity to purchase resources
and build connections, an advantage in terms of resource pricing and route
availability. Similarly, in Teuber’s Die Sternenfahrer von Catan (1999), players
below a certain point threshold receive a bonus resource that can be used
towards construction in the game.82
The variety and frequency of these design elements suggest that the issue
of keeping all players actively involved with the game throughout the course
of play is one that has caught the attention of eurogame designers. Through
the implementation of a wide range of design techniques, the overall experi-
ence is commonly that the outcome of a particular game cannot be predicted
until quite close to the game end. This notion, that players should always be
actively engaged with the game, is carried through to another trait of the
genre — that of constrained playing times.

Constrained Playing Times

When describing eurogames, another commonly cited attribute of the
genre is that they are normally playable within a maximum of two hours.
There are, of course, exceptions to this generalization — more complex exam-
ples such as Die Macher and Roads and Boats may often take in excess of three
hours — yet overall, eurogames tend to fall within a shorter time frame. More-
over, it is generally the case that the playing time of a particular game is pre-
dictable given the number of players.
The game of Chess, on the other hand, is an example of a game of unpre-
dictable duration. Were a novice to play against a Grandmaster, it is likely
that the game would be over in no more than a few minutes, while games
between two equally matched players have been known to take as long as 24
hours.83 In most games where the goal conditions involve a particular accom-
plishment, unpredictable play times are common. In games of score accumu-
lation, particularly in sports, the most common way to restrict the playing
time is to apply an arbitrary time limit, such as that in Soccer or Test Cricket.
116 EUROGAMES

In eurogames the duration of the game is typically constrained either by

the implementation of a set number of rounds or, more commonly, by having
the endgame conditions attached to the depletion of a particular game element.
Examples of the former, such as Tadsch Mahal and Im Jahr des Drachen (Feld,
2007a), take place over a set number of rounds.84 The tension in these games
arises from the fact that players have a limited amount of turns, known from
the outset, in which to accumulate points.85 Depletion of a particular game
resource is a very common way of bringing about the ending of a game, yet
in some cases it is arguably the case that the implementation is functionally
identical to using a set number of rounds. For example, Carcassonne has players
randomly draw a tile to play on the table. Since it is generally quite rare for
a tile to be unplayable, should a player take the time to count the number of
tiles and then divide this by the number of players, a reasonable estimate of
how many rounds will be in the game can be achieved.
In most cases the amount of an element used varies from turn to turn.
If the remaining quantity is open information, as it is being depleted, players
can develop a rough estimation of the remaining turns, a system that leads to
increasing tension as the particular element dwindles. Examples of this type
of endgame condition are plentiful within the genre.86 Finally, a number of
games blend these two approaches. The auction game Ra takes place over
three “epochs” (a theme-inspired euphemism for rounds), with each of these
being brought to a close when there are no more spaces available on a track
on the board. The moment the available spaces are depleted, scoring for that
epoch is calculated and the next round commences.
Although these techniques for constricting the playing time of a game
are not particularly innovative or unique — all manner of card games employ
rounds and depletion — the fact that they are so common in eurogames is
notable. As it is found in the vast majority of titles, a relatively short and pre-
dictable duration is an identifiable trait of the eurogame genre.

The Subjectivity of Genre

Anytime you want to start a good argument just ask a group of people to come
to an agreement as to what eurogame means.— Steve Jackson in Burgess,
2008a

I have highlighted here a series of traits and qualities that have become
identified with the eurogame genre. As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs,
however, this analysis is littered with the types of generalizations that make
genre identification so subjective. For all of the qualities cited in this chapter,
 5. The Eurogame Genre 117

there are counter-examples. There are examples of eurogames with mechanics

of direct conflict, examples with war themes, and those with poor components,
lengthy playing times and high doses of luck. However, the qualities listed
here together form a point of reference by which hobbyists are able to identify
a particular game as falling within the genre. Figure 5.17 provides a summary
of these traits.
Components Typically high quality but otherwise similar to other
genres of board and table game.
Environment Typically representational when present.
Ruleset Typically short and relatively simple.
Rules (Goals) Typically goals of comparative accumulation layered
over a wide variety of sub-goals.
Mechanics Typically non-confrontational, with choosing, placement
and point-to-point movement common.
Information Typically games of imperfect information.
Theme Typically an emphasis on the historical, with thematic
goals that stress individual achievement.
Random Elements Typically present but mitigated.
Duration Typically 1–2 Hours

Figure 5.17: Traits of Eurogames (Summary).

Inasmuch as eurogames can be compared to other genres of board and
table game (both proprietary and non-proprietary), similarities exist in the
common utilization of mechanics, such as point-to-point movement and
placement. Having said that, the emphasis upon choice from a limited subset
of potential actions, and the absence of mechanics that facilitate direct conflict,
can be considered defining traits of the eurogame genre. Coupled with the
employment of comparative accumulation as an overarching goal, this shift
away from direct conflict gives the eurogame design movement a distinct and
recognizable sensibility that highlights construction, development and com-
parative achievement over conflict.
It is clear that among the designers of eurogames there is a strong tendency
to prioritize the development of innovative and interesting mechanics over that
of theme. This shift in perspective is the factor most commonly cited in com-
paring mass-market and Anglo-American hobby designs with the European style
(Hardin, 2001). On the one hand, the emphasis on theme in Anglo-American
designs is commonly considered upon as enhancing the sense of immersion
in a game, a claim that brings to mind the narrativist argument in video game
studies. On the other hand, mechanics are seen as the defining element of a
game, with theme merely a trapping to contextualize and simplify player under-
standing of the underlying mechanics, a strongly ludological approach.
118 EUROGAMES

French game designer Bruno Faidutti explicitly refers to a geo-cultural

split in identifying these two aesthetics:
The German school of game design in which you can count some American
designers such as Sid Sackson or Alan R. Moon, clearly attach more impor-
tance to the system. They feel like the theme is only a practical tool to
describe the rules in a clearer and more efficient way — better talk of wheat
and wood than of yellow and green cards. This means that the theme is often
chosen after the game has been entirely designed, and sometimes doesn’t fit
very well, when some rules feel like “out of theme.” This doesn’t prevent such
games from being great ... the game systems are good enough to make for a
great game experience, but very different from the one you can have with
baroque games dripping with theme, like most CCGs or American style war
games [2008].
German designer Reiner Knizia perceives the difference in design philosophy
as being founded upon a similar division:
In America, the theme is seen as the game where as in the European [sic] the
game mechanics and the game system are seen as the game [Knizia in Batty,
2006a].
The emphasis on theme that Faidutti and Knizia draw attention to here
is amply evident in the evolution of Anglo-American wargames. Following
the popularity of media science fiction during the late 1970s, wargame com-
panies were quick to begin publishing games with science fiction and fantasy
themes, without significant innovations in the underlying mechanics. The
heritage of these games lay within the wargaming hobby, where simulation
constitutes “a major part of the aesthetic” (Costikyan, 2009). The principles
of conflict simulation that were laid down relatively early in the history of the
hobby demanded little mechanical innovation in the shift to new contexts.
As boardgamegeek user Leo Zappa describes, there is a reason why innovative
mechanics in wargames are not a design priority:
Wargamers, by and large, do not play a game to experience a unique set of
mechanics, but rather play a game to experience a unique take on a historical
battle or campaign. In fact, use of commonly understood, tried-and-true
mechanics (hex map, zones of control, stacking limits, ... etc.) in new games is
often considered a virtue by wargamers, as it means they don’t have to waste
time learning the fundamentals of how to play the game system, and can focus
instead on the unique strategic and tactical aspects of the situation being
modeled [2007].
Although not tied to a simulative design model, collectible card games
are another example of the thematic emphasis to which Faidutti and Knizia
refer. These games typically draw heavily on the core mechanics of Magic:
The Gathering, relying on market differentiation through the application of
 5. The Eurogame Genre 119

themes drawn from popular media licenses. Consequently, theme can be seen
to play a significant role in the decision to play one particular game over
another. Mark Bordenet (2000, pp. 38–39) identifies the strong attraction of
the fantasy theme in Magic: The Gathering and the importance of thematic
familiarity in players choosing to play the Star Wars CCG (Darcy et al., 1995).
While designers of eurogames develop mechanical systems, perhaps with
specific themes in mind, it is often the publishers of these games who decide
upon the eventual themes.87 Games are brought to market within a particular
cultural context in which both the theme and mechanics may play a role in
the success of a given title. As gaming writer Andrew Hardin points out, most
hobby gamers consider both the theme and the quality of the underlying
mechanics important (2001). The majority of eurogames do have a theme,
even if it is not uppermost in the minds of designers. So, despite the apparent
prioritization of mechanics over theme in these designs, the latter cannot be
dismissed as merely window dressing, especially considering the close rela-
tionship between thematic and mechanical goals identified here.
Both the thematic and mechanical goals of the typical eurogame are
imbued with the sensibilities of construction, development and accumulation,
a sharp contrast to the conflict-driven simulations that form the basis of Anglo-
American hobby gaming. This emphasis on individual accomplishment
through collaborative competition rather than achievement through direct
conflict and elimination arguably implies a more sociably oriented design phi-
losophy. The combination of simple rulesets, predictable playing times and
loosely applied generic themes of development that typify eurogames are evi-
dence of a game form with a particular focus on accessibility. Still, at the time
of this writing, eurogames remain a niche genre familiar for the most part
only to a dedicated hobbyist audience. It is to this audience, the players, that
I turn my attention in the next chapter.
 6

Hobby Gamers

Hobby gaming of any variety adds an aesthetic framework, an ethical

panorama and a structured sense of social dynamism to a player’s life. The
consequences of this are the provision of outlets for personal expression and
exploration as well as scope for community involvement and spiritual
growth.— Lenarcic and Mackay-Scollay, 2005

In previous chapters I have focused primarily upon the history of hobby

gaming and the specific forms of games that have contributed to the evolution
of hobby gaming culture. As I have noted, the emergence of eurogames as a
distinct genre within the broader hobby gaming culture was driven largely by
word of mouth within the culture rather than from a concerted commercial
effort on the part of publishers. An important question then, is why have
these games, essentially evolved from the European family market, proven so
popular among hobby gamers? In order to answer this we need firstly to have
a clear understanding of who hobby gamers are and secondly what participa-
tion in board gaming culture typically entails.
Consequently, in this chapter I will examine the motivations and activities
of players for whom the board gaming hobby occupies a central role in their
leisure pursuits. In identifying members of the website boardgamegeek as a
particularly active and easily accessible gaming community, my analysis of
players and play behavior is based upon a large-scale survey of site members.
Following a review of the basic demographics of site members, I argue that
the degree of enthusiasm for board games that is evident positions members
as a particular type of board game player — the gaming hobbyist. This enthu-
siasm is manifest in a variety of ways, most notably through active participa-
tion within the hobbyist culture, the acquisition and accumulation of games,
and a degree of evangelism for the hobby. This level of engagement with the
gaming hobby marks these players as atypical of the broader range of people
who, on occasion, play hobby games. This distinction has important ramifi-
cations for the discussions of play that occur later in this book.

120
 6. Hobby Gamers 121

Boardgamegeek
The rapid growth of the Internet over the last two decades has resulted
in the emergence of virtual “communities of interest” centered on particular
topics and a shared enthusiasm for specific cultural products and/or activities
(Armstrong and Hagel, 1996). The result is that such communities offer an
ideal space for the exploration of both the nature of specific communities and
the subject of their interest. Boardgamegeek, a website devoted to the cata-
loguing and discussion of board and table games, is such a community of
interest whose members can be seen as broadly representative of players with
a strong interest in hobby board games, particularly modern eurogames. The
enthusiasm for this particular form is reflected in the active discussion of not
only the games themselves, but on many elements of the culture surrounding
the hobby and the nature of play as it is experienced by gamers.
Launched in 2000 by American gamers Scott Alden and Derk Solko,
boardgamegeek has become a nexus for board game hobbyists on the Internet.
As of mid–2011 the site boasts 400,000 members and a database containing
over 50,000 individual games. Boardgamegeek is among the top 7,000 most
frequently visited websites on the Internet according to Alexa.com
(“boardgamegeek.com,” 2010).1 Gaming hobbyists use the site to discuss all
aspects of games and gaming culture. Features of the site include individual
listings for games, game rankings, discussion boards, collection management
tools, facilities for storing game-related files, a messaging service and trading
functionality. In 2010 the site was awarded the Inno-Spatz for “outstanding
achievements in the world of games” at the game designer’s convention in
Goettingen (Drude, 2010). Founded upon a shared interest in the emerging
eurogame genre and a desire to provide a platform for sharing information
and discussion (Alden and Solko, 2004b; Vasel, 2005e), boardgamegeek is
exemplary of the way in which communities of interest have found new life
on the Internet, becoming what cultural scholar Henry Jenkins describes as
“expansive self-organizing groups focused around the collective production,
debate, and circulation of meanings, interpretations, and fantasies in response
to various artefacts of contemporary popular culture” (2002b, p. 159).

Boardgamegeek Demographics
In 2007 I undertook an extensive online survey designed to draw out
basic demographic information about boardgamegeek members, along with
more qualitative information about the nature of their play experiences. In
order to situate the responses that are discussed in this book, I here review
122 EUROGAMES

the basic demographic data that was collected through this survey. This data
provides demographic information on the boardgamegeek community, based
on an average response rate for each question of approximately 650. As these
respondents are a self-selecting group, they can be considered representative
of frequent visitors and contributors to the site. Given the central role of
boardgamegeek within the broader hobby community, these respondents con-
stitute a sample with a particularly strong interest in board games.

Age, Gender and Relationship Status

The level of female participation in the boardgamegeek community is
extremely low (about seven percent) with males accounting for about 96 per-
cent of respondents. The average age of respondents is approximately 36 years,
with a significant proportion over 40 (28 percent). A different survey revealed
that 62 percent of respondents are married, with a further 16 percent in a
“serious relationship.” Only 17 percent identify themselves as being single. 48
percent have children.2

Education
Respondents were questioned as to the highest level of education they
had achieved. 68 percent of respondents indicated that they had achieved an
undergraduate degree or higher, with slightly more than 10 percent holding
a doctoral degree.

Nationality
Although boardgamegeek is based in the United States and the majority of
users are North American (68 percent), community members are drawn from
throughout the world, with a significant number from Europe (25 percent).

Profession/Income
Member professions were not captured in this survey; however, user
LankyEngineer conducted an informal poll in 2008 through the site’s forum
pages that addressed this question specifically (2008b).3 38 percent of users
work in IT or engineering related fields. Other notably represented fields of
employment are education (9 percent) and business management (6 percent).
Average income of site members is approximately U.S. $50,000 per year, 10
percent higher than the median in the United States at the time of the survey
(“U.S. Census Bureau,” 2006).
 6. Hobby Gamers 123

Play Habits — Frequency and Style

Not surprisingly, boardgamegeek members play board games more com-
monly than might be deemed “normal” in mainstream culture. The games
most commonly played by survey respondents are eurogames, with 47 percent
playing at least weekly and 85 percent playing at least once a month. Since
boardgamegeek was chosen for precisely the reason that it is a nexus for
eurogame players, this result was entirely expected. Video games in various
forms are also played with some frequency, particularly those that can be
played at home in isolation (single-player PC games, MMORPGs and con-
sole games). While other forms of hobby gaming are not well represented
in the survey, they are undoubtedly played with more frequency than
among the general population.4 Of other forms of hobby game, American
style board games are best represented — 33 percent play at least once a
month — although they are generally played with far less frequency than
eurogames.

Play Habits — Environment

Like most gaming hobbies, strategy gaming is one that takes place largely
in the domestic sphere of the players’ own homes. 85 percent of players indi-
cated that they frequently play with friends at home, while 70 percent play
with their families. 36 percent of players participate in organized gaming
groups that are based in private homes. Not surprisingly, then, the most com-
mon play environment for most respondents is the home (76 percent). As
Richard Butsch observes, the increased commercialization of leisure in the
20th century also marked a period where leisure activities were increasingly
focused in the privacy of the home (1990). Regional gaming groups operating
in public locations are another common venue for players, with 47 percent
indicating that they attended an organized group at a separate venue, although
only 21 percent indicated that this was the most common location for play.
34 percent of respondents indicated that they engaged in open gaming at con-
ventions, while only 12 percent of respondents attest to participating in organ-
ized tournaments.5

Summary — The Aging Male Gamer

The picture that emerges of the typical boardgamegeek member, then, is
one of an educated and relatively affluent married American male in his mid-
thirties. Interestingly, in his 1983 study of role-playing gamers, Gary Fine
makes the observation that participants in role-playing games are “almost
entirely male,” and that “the typical gamer is in his late teens or early twenties,”
124 EUROGAMES

suggesting that “like the participants in many leisure ‘scenes,’ most fantasy
gamers are young” (1983, pp. 39–41).6 Fine attributes this younger demo-
graphic, most of whom he notes are students, to the higher proportion of
leisure time that is available to younger adults:
Adolescents and young adults have free time, few social responsibilities, and
are relatively open to fantasy. Players cite marriages, full-time jobs, and gradu-
ate school as reasons for disengaging from the hobby, indicating that social
responsibilities affect the free time necessary for participating in these games
[p. 40].
Bordenet identifies a similar age group in his 2000 study of collectible
card game players.7 However, although demographic data concerning hobby
gamers is relatively sparse, or at least closely guarded by the industry, a 2000
survey by Wizards of the Coast found that the age of gamers was rising steadily,
with over 50 percent of gamers over the age of nineteen (Dancey, 2000).8
Furthermore, while the survey indicates that those players who take up gaming
during high school continue the pastime, there is also the suggestion that “the
existing group of players is aging and not being refreshed by younger players
at the same rate as in previous years.” My responses suggest that boardgamegeek
members constitute a significantly older demographic than did those who
responded to Fine’s and Bordenet’s surveys. While there is no firm evidence
that the two groups are linked, the notion that gamers constitute an aging
demographic generally is borne out by research into video games that has seen
the average age of players rising over the last two decades (“2008 Sales,” 2008;
Juul, 2010). A similar shift has been observed in comic book readership,
another staple of geek culture (Deppey, 2004).9
It is interesting that Fine partially attributes the age demographics of
role-playing gamers to the high proportion of leisure time that is available to
younger adults. Jesper Juul, in appraising the shifting demographics of video
gamers and the rise in popularity of “casual games,” suggests that one expla-
nation is to be found in the changing life circumstances of gamers (2010, p.
10). The idea that game playing habits are, in part, shaped by the shifting
responsibilities of age is a key focus of his book on the topic. The notion that
time constraints and other age-related responsibilities play a part in shaping
the gaming habits of players is reflected in discussions on boardgamegeek, in
particular where players attest to having played other forms of hobby game
earlier in their lives. Board games generally, and eurogames specifically, are
often identified as fitting far more comfortably into players’ lives as they grow
older:
I know from my experience that shorter games have gotten me back into the
hobby. As a young adult (college and shortly post-college), I used to play a lot
of longer games- 1830, Axis and Allies, Civilization, Stellar Conquest, Junta,
 6. Hobby Gamers 125

and others. With a few exceptions, like Acquire, that’s pretty much what was
available at the time if you wanted something better than what they sold at
Toys ‘R Us. I loved these games (and still do love 1830 and Civilization), but
once I had a demanding job, a wife, a home to take care of (home ownership
is much more work than an apartment), and a child, it really got to the point
where I could only play a 5+ hour game once or twice a year. The other guys
in my group were all in the same boat — we really wanted to play more, but
getting everyone together for a long game was just too hard with our schedules
[Hamburg, 2005].
The comparatively small time investment required by modern European board
games when compared with earlier Anglo-American designs and other forms
of hobby game can be attributed to the relative simplicity of rules and shorter
playing times. The result are games that are far easier to fit into a player’s life.

“The Hobby of the Over Educated”

Survey data from the U.S. indicates that 1 percent of the total population
have achieved a doctoral degree, while 28 percent have completed undergrad-
uate studies (Bergman, 2006; Nettles and Millett, 2006). A comparison with
survey respondents here indicates that boardgamegeek members constitute a
highly educated segment of the population. That no less than 78 percent have
attained at least an undergraduate degree, and 10 percent a doctoral degree,
appears remarkable. However, earlier research into other hobby gaming forms
suggests that these results are not as extraordinary as they initially seem. Fine’s
study of role-playing gamers also points to a high level of education among
players (1983, p. 41),10 as does Bordenet in his analysis of collectible card game
players (2000).11 A series of surveys conducted via SPI’s Strateg y and Tactics
magazine throughout the 1970s and 1980s identifies a similar, if not higher,
level of education among wargamers, leading Jim Dunnigan to describe the
hobby as that of “the over educated” (1997).
The idea that hobby gamers represent, on the whole, a highly educated
segment of society is borne out by the data concerning profession and income.
As noted earlier, survey respondents on average earn 10 percent more than the
median in the U.S. More revealing, perhaps, are the vocations that supply
this income. 45 percent of boardgamegeek members earn their living in fields
related to IT, engineering or education. Of particular interest are those working
in computer or mathematics-related fields. Site co-owner Solko has suggested
that those working with computers make up a sizeable proportion of members.
Indeed, the relationship between strategy gaming and computing culture is
occasionally discussed on the website:
126 EUROGAMES

I think you are going to find computer folks drawn to the hobby because of
the nature of the underlying system design. There is going to be a respect for
a well designed, elegant system in a game just like a well designed, elegant
computer process. Games are procedural in nature and exercise the same
thought processes as designing and writing code. In some senses, it’s just like
writing code, but you are using people and cardboard to execute the logic
[Beyer, 2005].
The comparison of games and computer programming as procedural processes
highlights an affinity between board gaming and other interests. Perhaps not
surprisingly, these interests tend towards the intellectual. After all, the name of
the website is boardgamegeek, a title with particular socio-cultural connotations.

Gamer Geeks
The basic demographics of boardgamegeek that are presented here —
highly educated males with an exaggerated interest in a particular form of
intellectual recreation — serve to highlight the appropriateness of the site’s
appellation, and its common abbreviation: the geek. Hobby games are a part
of a broader range of related hobbies and interests that together constitute
what might be loosely termed “geek culture.” In a general sense, the term
geek refers to an individual who is “fascinated, perhaps obsessively, by obscure
areas of knowledge and imagination” (Konzack, 2006). However, as Lars Kon-
zack observes, the objects of this fascination tend towards those with an
emphasis on individual fulfillment through the construction of fictional
worlds. Science fiction, fantasy, games (both digital and non-digital), comic
books and the broader culture of computing fall under this umbrella.
Although use of the term geek has somewhat pejorative origins (Smith,
1995, p. 12), as William Svitavsky notes, the rise of information technology
and the attendant cultural shifts have seen the label “subverted ... into proud
self-identification” (2001, p. 101). Konzack refers to the introspective pursuit
of consistent alternative realities as “the third counter-culture” (2006). Citing
longer periods of education, increased leisure time and the nature of Internet
communities in facilitating the sharing of specialized knowledge, Konzack
highlights the affinity between geeks and gaming culture generally:
From classic role-playing games, LARP, and strategic board games to trading
card games and highly developed videogames, the geek culture is mixing fun
with substance, rapidly changing how culture and aesthetics are perceived in
our culture [2006].
Clearly the correlation between gaming and geek culture is apparent in
the naming of boardgamegeek. Moreover, among members there is evidence
 6. Hobby Gamers 127

of a degree of pride in identifying as geeks — a label that suggests perhaps an

obsessive focus on games. The self-selecting sample that participated in this
survey constitutes a devoted group of enthusiasts whose interest in games
extends far beyond that of a casual player. Indeed, there is a marked difference
between those who would, on occasion, sit down to play a modern board
game and those who would identify themselves as being involved with “the
hobby.” This observation is also important in the context of gender among
site members. While women constitute a very small proportion of the respon-
dents to this survey, this should not be taken as indicative of the level of
female participation in the play of board games generally, but rather of a
focused engagement with all aspects of the hobby. As gaming writer Greg
Aleknevicus comments of boardgamegeek members in general:
I think this is a small percentage of the people who actually play European-
style games. It’s hard to imagine a more useful and interesting website than
the boardgamegeek and yet the majority of people I game with do not visit it
often, if at all. They’re perfectly content to get their information from other
players or the local game shop. The net’s greatest influence is seeding informa-
tion to the “super fans” who pass it along through more conventional means:
word of mouth [2008].
Boardgamegeek user Tim Kilgore describes the role of these “super fans” in
terms of how they shape the playing habits of more casual players:
There are people that buy games and people that play them. Most gaming
groups tend to have only one or two alpha-geeks (the guys that buy more than
half of the games). These are the guys that tend to be the evangelists [2005].
The identification made here of “alpha geeks” and “super fans” is one that
confirms my own experience of board gaming groups. Typically, one or two
members who align themselves closely with the hobby pursue information on
releases, make purchasing decisions and, ultimately, determine the games that
more casual hobbyists play. These alpha geeks are almost invariably male.
Aleknevicus’ use of the term “fans” in this context is also a particularly
fitting one. Gordon Bruner and Scott Thorne have undertaken an extensive
review of literature concerning the nature of fans and fandom, describing a
fan as:
A person with an overwhelming liking or interest in a particular person,
group, trend, artwork or idea. Behavior is typically viewed by others as
unusual or unconventional but does not violate prevailing social norms [2006,
p. 53].
An interesting observation here is that the notion of fan culture does not
necessarily suggest a counter-cultural stance that challenges societal norms.
Although fans characteristically pursue the object of their fandom with con-
128 EUROGAMES

siderable zeal, they rarely threaten or offer disruptive alternatives to the dom-
inant ideologies of the society in which they are found. In the past, however,
fan communities have typically been marginalized due to their apparent
strangeness. Typically this has not been a result of the level of devotion (which
is surely shared by enthusiasts of more mainstream activities such as sports),
but by the perceived lack of “worthiness” of the specific subject ( Jensen, 1992).
Reflecting this, gaming writer Rick Heli tellingly compares board gaming cul-
ture in the U.S. with science fiction fandom:
These games have mostly been a counterculture thing here. Those who are
thoughtful, precise and analytical have often been ignored in this country,
which gave rise to science fiction, the literature of the smarter who long to
have their due — see A.E. van Vogt’s Slan which features big brain aliens
secretly masquerading as ordinary humans.... Games have had the very same
sort of appeal in many cases [Heli in Eggert, 2005].12

The sense of community within gaming culture is comparable to that of

science fiction fandom as they both share the heritage of an intellectual geek
culture (Konzack, 2006) and are both outside of the mainstream.13 More sig-
nificantly, as David Hartwell notes, participation in science fiction fandom
involves far more than the consumption of texts. Hartwell distinguishes fans
not by the fact that they read science fiction, but by their participation in
related activities such as conventions, collecting and the production of amateur
content (1984, pp. 158–159). In the context of the gaming hobby, designer
Rick Holzgrafe describes a similar level of involvement:
Actually playing the durned things is only a small part of the hobby. There’s
collecting, searching for bargains and rare games, discussions of strategy, read-
ing reviews, writing reviews, written session reports and verbal post-mortems,
rule-lawyering, designing and discussing variations, deconstructing designs to
see how the masters go about their craft, anticipating new releases, going to
cons to talk with designers and see the latest stuff, making player aids and
travel kits, making homemade copies of hard-to-find games, even creating
your own games. There are a hundred ways to play with games when you can’t
actually play the games themselves [2006]

As Holzgrafe indicates here, hobby gaming not only involves the dedi-
cated play of games but also the acquisition of specialized knowledge that can
then be applied to discussion and critique of the form. This specialized knowl-
edge, coupled with the relatively small size of the hobby gaming industry,
tends to lead to a blurring of the line between consumer and producer, par-
ticularly when hobbyists circulate knowledge and texts back into the com-
munity. As dedicated gamers who actively engage with the hobby and each
other in ways that surpass casual interest, hobbyists are comparable to many
 6. Hobby Gamers 129

other fan communities in that they constitute a unique segment of the audi-
ence whose enthusiasm marks them as notable yet atypical.
The board gaming hobby is best described as a leisure subculture. I use
this term, borrowed from Gary Fine’s work on role-playing gamers (1983, p.
237), for two reasons. Firstly, the term neatly sidesteps the political conno-
tations that are so often associated with more counter-cultural forms of sub-
culture. In the case of hobbyists, there is no shared political dimension that
accompanies engagement with the hobby. Hobby gamers are individuals who,
attracted to a particular leisure pursuit, seek each other out and form loose
aggregations around a shared interest. As cultural studies scholar Lawrence
Grossberg observes:
The fact that a group of people share a taste for some texts does not in fact
guarantee that their common taste describes a common relationship. Taste
merely describes people’s different abilities to find pleasure in a particular
body of texts rather than others [1992, p. 42].

The second reason for using this term is to highlight the fact that since
the focus of the culture is a leisure pursuit, any attachments to other, more
politicized groupings are unlikely to be eclipsed by participation in the hobby.
Leisure subcultures rarely hold sway over individuals in the same way as do
more counter-cultural examples, such as youth subcultures (Fine, 1983, p.
237).
Having distanced game hobbyists from more politicized and cohesive
notions of subculture, it is important to note that leisure activities are not
chosen on an ad hoc basis. Typically generalized preferences exist in which
individuals “develop broader systems of leisure behavior consisting of a num-
ber of interdependent elements” (Roberts, 1978, p. 37). As I noted above, one
of the “broader systems” that contributes to an interest in hobby gaming is
that of geek culture. The embrace of particular board games as a legitimate
and laudable cultural product is, as Konzack argues, typical of this:
The geek (or at least the well-educated geek) marvels not just at anything, but
seeks the quality in these cultural products. Not all games are equally good.
The same goes for movies, comics, literature, etc. In that sense it’s actually
anti-post-modern, because they are not saying “anything goes.” On the con-
trary, they are saying that these aesthetic contributions need to be taken seri-
ously, demanding meticulous criticism and genuine research [2006].
Evidence of this type of “meticulous criticism” is abundant on
boardgamegeek. Reviews and comparisons of games, debates over the merits
of particular designers, discussions of the nuances of mechanics and the relative
importance of theme — these are among the core activities that define the con-
tent of the website. As a community of interest, boardgamegeek provides a
130 EUROGAMES

forum for hobbyists to thoroughly analyze every facet of board game design,
production and play, an environment ideally suited to the geek tendency to
focus tightly on one specific topic.14
Although not necessarily politicized, like many subcultures, gaming posi-
tions itself against a more conventional counterpart — in this case the main-
stream board game market. The majority of respondents indicate that they
rarely, if ever, play mainstream games (59 percent), while a further 35 percent
play only occasionally.15 This dismissal of mass-market board games is readily
identifiable in discussions on the website, with the ubiquitous Monopoly often
held up as a prime example of everything that gamers perceive is “wrong”
with mainstream games:
It’s dismissed for several things which combine to a poor game design in
today’s terms — runaway leader, large luck which “scales up” the more the
trading is done (and trading is very close to the only meaningful decision),
player elimination, and a long play time for the amount of decisions made
[Van Zandt, 2009].
The distribution of properties is the most important determinate of who will
win, and they are distributed randomly by rolling dice and moving onto
them. A game in which the most important way to win is rolling the right
number on a set of dice can never be terribly interesting [Spencer, 2008].

As suggested here, the principal reason cited for the dismissal of main-
stream board games is that they rarely offer players meaningful decisions
through which they might affect the outcome of the game. This esoteric crit-
icism reflects the way in which hobbyists think critically about games as vehi-
cles for entertainment. While for the non-gamer a board game might be seen
as a way to pass a few idle hours without too much thought, for the hobbyist
games are often only valued to the degree they allow players to engage with
a system that produces meaningful decisions and outcomes. Through expe-
rience of a wide variety of games, players develop what might cynically be
termed an elitist stance against mainstream games, precisely because they do
not provide the kinds of pleasures that hobby gamers pursue in game expe-
riences. Given the breadth of gaming experience of the typical hobbyist, the
development of this perspective can be largely attributed to active and sus-
tained engagement. Although a popular perspective in sociology attributes
aesthetic taste to social origin16— certainly a factor in the broader development
of geek leisure preferences — it is important to acknowledge the way in which
enthusiasts operate as a “competing educational elite” ( Jenkins, 1992, p. 86),
recognizing the value and quality in particular cultural products. French soci-
ologist Antoine Hennion describes this reflexive relationship between the indi-
vidual and taste:
 6. Hobby Gamers 131

Tastes are not given or determined, and their objects are not either; one has to
make them appear together, through repeated experiments, progressively
adjusted.... Through comparison, repetition and so on, things that are less
inert than they appear are made more present [2007, p. 101].

Of course, this is not to say that there are not other factors at work in
developing a preference for a particular form of game over another. The opin-
ions of friends and colleagues may have a significant impact on perceptions,
an effect that is only magnified within a community of interest such as
boardgamegeek. The various game awards also serve to shape preferences and
guide purchasing decisions. Additionally, as writer and reviewer Michael
Barnes suggests, the unique origins of eurogames may play a role in their cur-
rent popularity:
There’s this cache of perceived exoticism and esotericism that comes with
being into “German Games” that has created this mindset among the current
generation of gamers that someone “foreign” equals “superior” and there’s this
whole new set of aesthetics founded largely on that concept [Barnes, 2006].

All of these factors — social origin, the opinions of friends, the views of
peers in the community, and the accumulation of social capital — doubtless
contribute to a propensity for playing a particular kind of game. Still, the fact
remains that board game hobbyists tend to be passionate about their hobby,
and, in their devotion to the pastime, analyze, critique and discuss games
with a dedication that is comparable to fans of many other cultural products.
Of course, in order to develop this level of specialist knowledge, hobbyists
must play, and consequently buy, many games.

Acquisition, Accumulation and Collection

In some ways I think we’re more like beer, wine, or scotch enthusiasts. It’s fun
to know about a lot of different games: how they’re alike or different, how a
game reflects its designer, publisher, and the era or country in which it was
published. How well a game works with different ages, or with different num-
bers of players.— Dubin, 2008

Hobby gamers typically purchase many games through their participation

in the hobby. The acquisition and accumulation of games is, for some, a sig-
nificant part of their enjoyment of the pastime. Unlike classical abstract games,
a specific game rarely becomes the focus of a player’s attention to the exclusion
of all others (Aleknevicus, 2001b). Although there are exceptions (such as
those players who focus exclusively on the 18XX series of railroad games), for
132 EUROGAMES

the most part board game hobbyists move between different games with a
particularly strong emphasis on new releases. Although lacking the focused
dedication that is often seen with “lifestyle” games, such as Chess or Go, this
diversification can, perhaps, offer a more general understanding of games:
In a mono-gaming culture (where you played the same game over and over
again), you’d become an expert on strategies for playing that game. In the
more diverse gaming environment, you start thinking about game design more
generally as you compare how different rules/mechanics shape the feel of dif-
ferent games. Individual games may be quicker, but you’re still developing a
cumulative knowledge of gaming which is a result of many hours of
play/study/experience/thought [Hemberger, 2005].
The trend towards diversification and accumulation is reflected in an informal
poll of active boardgamegeek members conducted in 2009, indicating that
approximately 57 percent purchase one or more games a month, with over
one-third purchasing two or more (Williams, 2008).17 In part, the drive
towards accumulation may be a result of there being far more games available
in the marketplace than was previously the case:
There are far too many good books to read them all in one lifetime. I think
the “problem” is that good games are now almost like good books. There was
a period of time where gamers had relatively little choice of what good games
to play. Now we’re spoiled for choice. That can lead to the tendency to jump
around [Witt, 2005].
The aging player demographic and the associated rise in income is also a rel-
evant factor. As gamer Ken Mixon notes, “nowadays, we’re all grown up, have
varying degrees of disposable income, and are able to succumb to our material
wants more easily” (2005).
For many players it is the desire to experience new games that drives
their acquisition of new titles, a focus that has come to be known as “the cult
of the new.” Often this may be a part of an ongoing quest for an optimal
assortment of games that represents particular mechanics or themes, can
accommodate a particular number of players, or, more generally, provide a
game for every social setting. There is also a sense that some players are pur-
suing an indefinable “ideal” game experience:
Ideally, I’d like to own just one game — and I’d like it to be a game that every-
body I know (including me) absolutely loves and can never get enough of and
will never tire of or outgrow. A game that brings back all the wondrous magic
of childhood and excitement of good game play for everyone involved, every
time. Anytime I buy a new game, it’s in hopes of it turning out to be that one
ultimate game [Carroll, 2008b].
Although it is possible to view this habitual acquisition of games as
merely an example of unnecessarily conspicuous consumption, another per-
 6. Hobby Gamers 133

spective is that modern games are not suitable for repeated play. Arguably,
eurogames lack the strategic depth that is attributed to classical abstracts and
older, more complex hobby games. A common criticism is that new publica-
tions are often variations on previous titles, merely remixing and adapting
familiar mechanics. Consequently, when original designs do appear there is a
sense that the focus upon innovative mechanics in European designs does not
lend itself to repeated plays:
I think most new eurogames are disposable, something you expect to play
maybe 5 to 7 times, are priced to match, and that’s OK. Every so often you
get a great one you play again and again, but you expect the numbers of those
to be small. At some level, a chunk of the enjoyment of a game for me is just
in the experience of playing it, of seeing how it works — experiencing the
game as one might experience art or a movie — and that is obviously some-
thing that’s not going to be as impressive the second (or third or whatever)
time through.... They [German games] simply aren’t designed to be played
endlessly [Farrell, 2005].
In an early Sumo article, Charles Vasey questioned the reasons for accu-
mulating games and in doing so, challenged readers to examine how many of
their games had been played five or ten times (Dagger, 2006b). The resultant
“five and ten” lists served as an indicator of how few games were being played
repeatedly.18 Nevertheless, discussion of the value of games is common on
boardgamegeek, with users often drawing comparisons with other forms of
consumer goods and activities19:
With a board game what you’re really talking about is bang for your economic
buck. Even a $50+ board game compares favorably with the cost of an eve-
ning out, and it’s going to have a much longer lifespan of enjoyment than a
night at dinner and the movies — and a not unappreciable lifespan in compari-
son with video games [Jenkins, 2008].
The fact that hobby gamers have a tendency to purchase large numbers
of games is most commonly a result of the desire to engage in new gaming
experiences. Viewed in this light, the hobbyist is what marketing theorists
term an “accumulator” (Belk et al., 1988, p. 548)— that is, one who acquires
significant quantities of related items for their utilitarian and/or aesthetic
value. However, as Lawrence Belk observes, the accumulator is closely related
to another role, that of the collector (1995, p. 67). In the acquisition of games,
slippage between these two roles may often be unconscious:
I have a suspicion that a lot of gamers periodically give in to a “collecting”
urge even though they’re not collectors. They only buy games to play, and
they already have more than enough games to play, but when something shiny
and new comes along, they still want it. And then at some point, they end up
like me — looking at a closet full of unplayed games and wondering, What was
I thinking? [Carroll, 2008a].
134 EUROGAMES

In a poll conducted by boardgamegeek user LankyEngineer in August

2008, close to half (48.7 percent) of respondents report owning more than
100 games (2008a).20 More telling of the “cult of the new,” however, is a
similar survey conducted in 2009 indicating that over a quarter of
boardgamegeek members have more than fifty unplayed games in their collec-
tions (Seldner, 2009).21
Although most hobbyists on boardgamegeek refer to their accumulated
games as a “collection,” there are some members for whom the acquisition of
games is driven by factors beyond their functional or aesthetic value. For these
hobbyists, the accumulation of games is not merely a side effect of their interest
in play — it constitutes another form of engagement with the hobby. The dis-
tinction between the accumulator and the collector is an important one, since
it grants the objects collected a value beyond the utilitarian, typically through
the way that an object forms a part of a set (Belk et al., 1988; Baudrillard,
1994, pp. 7–8). As collecting is a voluntary and organizational activity, it can
also be considered a form of play itself (Katriel and Danet, 1994, p. 222).
J. Patrick Williams identifies the way in which consumption operates
within hobby gaming subcultures (2006). Following the work of Fine (1989),
he identifies the organizational level by which manufacturers nurture subcul-
ture through the constant provision of new products. Although the collectibil-
ity of board games is not nearly so overtly realized as it is with the collectible
strategy games that Williams discusses, some game publishers do cater to the
collecting urge in hobbyists. Series of games are numbered,22 or, more often,
are linked by similar packaging and presentation, thus increasing the percep-
tion that a range of games constitutes a “set.”23 More explicitly, it is extremely
rare that a successful game does not result in at least one expansion. Indeed,
many hobbyists attest to an urge towards completism in the accumulation of
expansions related to a favored game.
A more nuanced way that this consumption operates is found in the way
that a game collection contributes to identity and cultural capital within the
community (Williams, 2006). Theorists interested in cultural understandings
of consumption argue that the acquisition of goods acts as a way by which
individuals can establish a sense of identity (Featherstone, 1991; Friedman,
1994; Mackay, 1997). For these writers, the value of consumer goods is not
only found in their utility but in their capacity to define a sense of self and
to express that identity to others. As gamer Gabe Alvaro observes:
One could ... question whether the acquisition of more games is an activity
wrapped in one’s identity as viewed by others. For example, are you the “guy
who is always bringing out the cool new games?” If you are, and you like the
attention of being recognized as such, it’s possible you might also be buying
more new games to keep up that reputation [2008].
 6. Hobby Gamers 135

In the case of board game hobbyists, such identification can play an

important role in establishing cultural capital within the community. The
possession of a large number of games and the continual acquisition of newer
titles implicitly suggests a greater degree of immersion in, and understanding
of, the hobby. Additionally, the ownership of specific highly valued and/or
rare games can indicate to other hobbyists a commitment to the culture that
can bestow a degree of authenticity upon the individual.
The accumulation of games not only serves as a way by which players
can establish capital within the culture, but it also identifies them to the
broader society as a gamer. Large game collections demand a conspicuous
amount of space in the home and can alter the domestic space significantly.
Some players have dedicated gaming rooms to accommodate both play and
storage, the display of which on the Internet site is generally greeted with
enthusiastic appreciation.24 As Belk and Wallendorf observe, the identity of
a collector is often revealed through their collection:
A collection is closely linked to the collector’s identity; someone cannot excuse
a collection by saying, “Well, I just happened to pick that up from some-
where,” or “someone gave that to me.” Because a collection results from pur-
poseful acquisition and retention, it announces identity traits with far greater
clarity and certainty than the many other objects owned [1994, p. 240].
The existence and popularity of collection management tools on
boardgamegeek are clear evidence of the relationship between game playing
and game collecting among hobbyists. Discussions on the site regarding meth-
ods of game storage and collection management are common, while images
of large game collections are referred to as “game pr0n”— a clear allusion to
the desirability of owning numerous games.25
While most hobbyists can be considered accumulators of games, there
is a crossover with those who might be considered “real” collectors. In both
of these roles the interest is expanded beyond that of merely playing games
to other related activities, the reporting of which on boardgamegeek serves as
cultural “glue” within the community. Collection and accumulation, activities
found within many fan cultures, contribute to the development of specialized
knowledge that can then be circulated back into the community.

A Shared Culture — Designers/Publishers/Players

Henry Jenkins explores the relationship between media fans and content
creators in his influential work Textual Poachers, describing how particular
media texts are reworked and remediated by fans to create new meanings,
often resulting in derivative works that are then re-circulated back into fan
136 EUROGAMES

culture (1992). Media theorist John Fiske describes this process as “textual
productivity,” pointing to motivation and circulation as key differentiators
between these products and “legitimate” texts:
Fans produce and circulate among themselves texts which are often created
with production values as high as any in the official culture. The key differ-
ences between the two are economic rather than ones of competence, for fans
do not write or produce their texts for money; indeed, their productivity typi-
cally costs them money.
There is also a difference in circulation; because fan texts are not produced
for profit, they do not need to be mass-marketed, so unlike official culture,
fan culture makes no attempt to circulate its texts outside its own community
[1992, p. 39].26
In discussing the ways in which some leisure subcultures can be perceived
as “copyrighted,” Fine pays particular attention to games as a consumer good
that are manufactured and purchased by members of a specific culture, with
the entrepreneur providing the rules by which games are played (1989). How-
ever, as Fine notes, the communal nature of gaming subcultures often com-
plicates understandings of authority, such that players perceive themselves as
having ownership of the game, and thus the freedom to manipulate the rules
and engage creatively with texts. Reflecting this, the history of hobby gaming
culture is replete with examples of creative textual productivity that date back
to long before the rise of the Internet. Early wargame magazines are filled
with suggested rule variants — a tradition that is continued in fanzines such
as Sumo and Counter— while many hobby games have inspired enthusiasts to
develop alternative rules, maps, and scenarios that modify the base game.
Role-playing games in particular encourage creativity through the provision
of a rules system that is adaptable to a wide variety of scenarios and player-
created narratives.
While the existence of an active participatory culture is not predicated
upon the presence of digital communication technologies ( Jenkins, 2002b;
Merrick, 2004), the avenues of communication provided by the Internet have
helped to foster a community of gamers who are able to circulate fan products
to a large and geographically dispersed audience. The wide availability of dig-
ital design tools and the simplicity of downloading and printing graphic files
have resulted in a wide variety of supplementary documents being available
via the files section of boardgamegeek.
The most common form of downloadable fan-created content on the
site arises from a perceived shortcoming of published games. Player aids, at-
a-glance summaries of the process of play, are available for a large number of
games. While some are simple text documents intended merely as a handy
reference tool, others elaborately incorporate graphics from the original game
 6. Hobby Gamers 137

in order to provide a document that not only assists in play but also augments
the published game. In some cases, where the rulebook published with the
game is considered inadequate, enthusiasts have entirely rewritten the rules
in order to make the game more accessible for others.27 Given the European
origins of many games, rules translations too are common.
While these forms of content creation are undertaken out of perceived
necessity, more elaborate examples of textual productivity can be seen in the
many fan-produced expansions for games. Examples include numerous expan-
sions for Carcassonne,28 fan-created maps for rail games such as Age of Steam
and Railroad Tycoon (Drover and Wallace, 2005), and the development of
new cards for games such as Dominion and Race for the Galaxy (Lehmann,
2007).
Interestingly, perhaps due to the often-tenuous relationship between
theme and mechanics in many eurogames, another common form of fan-
created content involves re-theming games with other icons of geek culture.
Days of Wonder’s popular cooperative game Shadows over Camelot (Cathala
and Laget, 2005), has been re-imagined in the realm of Monty Python’s Holy
Grail, while Reiner Knizia’s Egyptian-themed auction game Ra is transposed
to a world of surreal horror inspired by H. P. Lovecraft in Rathulhu. The
ancient war-themed card game Battle Line (Knizia, 2000c)— itself a re-
theming of the original Schotten Totten (Knizia, 1999e)29— can be downloaded
from the site in a file that replaces all of the cards with characters from the
television series The Simpsons. In cases where games have long been out of
print, some fans have taken it upon themselves to produce freely available
downloads of entire games, with graphical components either rendered specifi-
cally for this purpose or appropriated from copyright-free sources.30
The fact that this type of fan activity occurs largely unhindered speaks
to the relationship between game hobbyists and the small industry that caters
to them. As Richard Busch observes, a consequence of the 20th century shift
towards the domestic sphere in the practice of leisure was that pastimes became
less subject to the hegemonic values of society (1990). Hobby businesses par-
ticularly tend to grow out of small entrepreneurial foundations that are com-
monly the work of hobbyists themselves. Thus, the micro-industries that
sprang from this shift are not entirely “impositions of monolithic capital” (p.
19) but have come to embody a negotiated relationship between the consumer
and the producer. Due to the fact that the majority of individuals working
within the hobby gaming industry are themselves members of the culture,
the industry operates, for the most part, in a manner quite dissimilar to that
of the prototypical capitalist business (Winkler, 2006).
Since hobby board gaming occupies such a niche in English-speaking
countries, significant value is placed on word-of-mouth marketing. A game
138 EUROGAMES

that becomes successful will rarely, if ever, do so due to intense advertising

campaigns or carefully considered corporate marketing techniques. Thus,
business owners are aware that gamers can have a significant role in the success
of individual titles. Consequently, companies have a particularly strong need
to communicate effectively with those hobbyists who tend to make purchasing
decisions and act as “tastemakers” for the hobby. To this end, many designers
and publishers utilize boardgamegeek as a point of intersection with the broader
gaming community, and a large number maintain active accounts on the web-
site.31 In the case of designers, many have posted to the site to clarify rule
queries and answer specific questions concerning games they have designed,
with some contributing essays and anecdotes explaining the origin of games
and the nature of the design process. On occasion designers have been known
to incorporate feedback from the website into re-issues of a game.32
One especially useful aspect of the relationship between gamers and the
individuals and companies who make games is the ability to gauge the poten-
tial demand for a product before committing to publication. The ability of
publishers to effectively measure consumer interest is useful in deciding to
translate successful European titles into English, as with Z-Man Games’
reprint of the 2008 Spiel des Jahres special prize winner Agricola. A number
of game companies have reprinted games specifically due to their venerated
status among hobby gamers. A good example of this model is found in the
small publisher Valley Games who have successfully reprinted Karl Heinz
Schmiel’s Die Macher and the long-out-of-print Avalon Hill titles Hannibal:
Rome vs. Carthage (Simonitch, 1996) and Titan.
The close ties between the hobby gaming industry and its customers can
often result in hobbyists having a more formal relationship with publishers. Play -
testing, the process of development and refinement through iterative play ses-
sions, is often outsourced to gaming groups where in-house resources are limited.
Translation is another area where enthusiasts can, and do, contribute. While
amateur translations are common on boardgamegeek, on occasion these texts
are used in the published versions of the game.33 At conventions it is often
hobbyists who are enrolled to demonstrate games to prospective customers.
Given the insights into game design and the industry generally that hob-
byists typically acquire, it is not surprising to find that many decide to take
their interest further by designing and/or publishing their own games. At the
simplest level this typically involves the development of “print and play games”
that can be downloaded from boardgamegeek at no cost. Some designers have
had games picked up by existing publishers, while others have self-published
their games. Although the most popular site for the discussion of game design
on the Internet is the Boardgame Designers Forum (2009), an active game
design community does exist on boardgamegeek. The most important role that
 6. Hobby Gamers 139

the site plays for prospective designers and publishers lies in the ability to dis-
seminate information to hobbyists. Jeremiah Lee, the designer of Zombies in
my Pocket (2009a), highlights the importance of the community in raising
awareness of what was originally a free print and play game:
The Geek was a big influence on my process, as I hadn’t heard of PnP games
until I came here, and without all the people that printed, played, loved, and
rated ZimP, it wouldn’t have found a publisher [Lee, 2009b].
Jackson Pope of Reiver Games is an example of an independent publisher
for whom the boardgamegeek community has been significant in raising aware-
ness of his games:
I designed Border Reivers 34 a couple of years before I found the Geek, but
coming here definitely gave me the impetus to self-publish. I made 100 copies
by hand and they sold out within 11 months, largely due to the Geek. So then
I published 300 copies of Yehuda’s It’s Alive! 35 ... again by hand, and again it
sold out within a year. Since then I’ve gone into it full-time and got a re-print
of It’s Alive! manufactured for me and a third game, Carpe Astra,36 by Ted
Cheatham and I [2009].
A wonderful example of the relationship between the hobbyist commu-
nity and the industry can be found in Steve Zamborsky’s game Cleopatra’s
Caboose (Zamborsky, 2010). In 2005, boardgamegeek user Chuck Uherske cre-
ated a tongue-in-cheek geeklist entitled Things I’m Sick Of!, which lampooned
particularly overused tropes within the gaming hobby (2005).37 Listed among
these were Egyptian-themed games, auction games and train games. In a
response to the list, amateur designer Zamborsky commented that he was
currently working on “a game that auctions off trains. In Ancient Egypt.”
Another user chimed in with the (again, tongue-in-cheek) suggestion that
the game should be titled “Cleopatra’s Caboose.” Zamborsky describes how
the game came to be:
When I read that Geeklist, I thought it would be pretty funny to comment
that I was working on a game that combined several of those elements, even
though I wasn’t. Apparently, my subconscious thought otherwise and my
mind had been processing some things that I wasn’t aware of, because next
thing I know I’m writing down notes for Caboose after waking up one day.
Some more notes later, I realized I had to create the prototype to test the ideas
and make sure that what I came up with worked. The rest, as they say, is his-
tory [2009].
History, in this case, saw the game picked up for development by Z-Man
Games, with characters whose names are derived partly from historic railroad
barons and partly from Egyptian gods.38 Released in late 2010, Cleopatra’s
Caboose is an elaborate in-joke, an inspired parody of modern strategy games
that reflects the close relationship between hobbyists and game publishers.
140 EUROGAMES

Cleopatra’s Caboose— developing train networks in ancient Egypt! (image by

Gary James, courtesy Z-Man Games).

As is common within niche hobbies, the line between consumer and cre-
ator within the board gaming hobby is frequently blurred by the activities of
enthusiasts, whether this is in the form of developing supplementary materials
for existing products or through more formal participation in the industry.
Board game hobbyists are not passive consumers, detached from the industry
that supports their interests; they share a “sense of identity and feeling of
inclusiveness” engendered by a mutual enthusiasm for the activity of gaming
(Winkler, 2006, p. 148). Not surprisingly, then, there is a tendency to share
this enthusiasm with those outside of the hobby.

The Gaming Evangelist

Our hobby grows by word of mouth. Get one person in, and they bring in
one more. They bring in a family, their children bring their friends, their
friends bring their parents. I got my manager to play Take It Easy. Her boy
loved it. She got all her friends to play it, their kids loved it, bought it, and
even after leaving the dept, she’s still asking me where to get it.— EYE of
NiGHT, 2005

Perhaps the most interesting trait of hobby board gaming culture in terms
of its relationship to the mainstream lies in the belief shared by many members
 6. Hobby Gamers 141

that hobby games — particularly eurogames — have the potential for far
broader appeal. While a degree of enthusiasm for sharing is to be expected in
any hobby, there is a perception that unlike other forms of hobby gaming,
which require a degree of involvement with a marginalized subculture,
eurogames could achieve considerable popularity given sufficient exposure.
After all, since the roots of eurogames lie in titles that are designed to be
played by the family rather than by dedicated hobbyists, it seems natural to
some hobbyists that these should supplant mainstream American games. As
a result, many players see themselves in an evangelical role, with every person
a potential recruit to the hobby.
Boardgamegeek members commonly talk about the successes and failures
they have experienced in attracting new players, and discuss ways in which
they might be more effective in drawing in friends and family to share the
perceived pleasures of the hobby. Frequent discussions as to which games are
most effective in introducing newcomers have led to the adoption of the term
“gateway games” to describe aesthetically attractive and relatively accessible
games. A common belief is that many non-gamers view board games in a
negative light due to their previous exposure to mainstream games:
I will keep trying to introduce TGOO39 to people who haven’t seen them for
the sheer satisfaction that I get from watching someone’s face when they ask
which piece can they move and be told, “Any of them!” Which direction?
“Any.” Etc. There are people out there that really believe (because they’ve
never seen another type of game) that you roll dice, count spaces and do what
the new space says [Russell, 2008].
As hobbyist Scott Russell suggests here, there is more to introducing players
to the hobby than sitting them down in front of an unfamiliar game. In the
USA the image persists that board games are the domain of children. Although
modern hobbyists might see their choice of games as being a world apart from
other styles of games, this perception is not commonly shared. As one hobbyist
comments:
Board games just aren’t as social[ly] acceptable in the U.S. That’s what it boils
down to. On the other hand, it’s not as bad to have DVD collection of
movies, TV shows, documentaries, and concerts that fill up an entire wall. It’s
not as “socially awkward” to put on face paint, scream at referees, and easily
spend hundreds to thousands of $$ for season tickets for sports games [Yao,
2008].
From another perspective, it is not so much that board games themselves
are perceived as problematic, but the degree of enthusiasm and interest shown
by hobbyists. Negative stereotypes that have historically been attached to the
enthusiastic pursuit of gaming and other “geek” interests persist. As a conse-
quence of this perceived stereotyping, some members attest to not mentioning
142 EUROGAMES

their hobby for fear of such connotations, while others describe creative ways
in which to distance themselves from this image:
I always stress that I play German import games. It makes it sound really
exotic, and thus makes you sound less obsessive and geeky. The response is
always, “Huh, that’s interesting.” and then I can give the spiel about the dif-
ferences between American and German games. Something like, “German
games have been refined so that they emphasize a wonderful and dynamic
social experience ... blah blah blah.” The key is to try and talk about them as
if you were talking about fine wine or antiques [Carr, 2005].

The idea that the play of games by adults is not socially acceptable in the U.S.
is complicated by the huge rise in popularity of video games over the last
three decades. Particularly in the last ten years it has become far more accept-
able for adults to not only engage with games, but to incorporate them into
their lives on a level comparable with other recreational media. Strangely,
while the millions who play these games regularly attest to the popularity of
games in general, it would seem that there still remains something a little too
“geeky” about gathering with friends to play with physical components.
One explanation commonly offered for the dismissal of board gaming as
a legitimate leisure pursuit draws on the perceived intellectualism of geek cul-
ture generally and board games specifically. This line of thought among hob-
byists runs that since board gaming draws such a relatively well-educated
audience, it is predictable that the majority would not enjoy them:
I can’t speak for the world, here in the U S of A, a vast majority of people
really don’t want to think. Not deep down. Either because they are tired or
busy or stressed or simply uninformed, they don’t seek out anything but “nor-
mal.” Look at popular music, popular television, popular news channels, pop-
ular political commentators, popular books, popular anything, and you’ll see a
preponderance of “please don’t make me think.” ... People (for the most part)
want to be spoon-fed their entertainment. Occasionally they will enter a
thought-provoking discourse or activity, but it’s usually the exception and
rarely the norm. Even gateway games make you think. And as a nice diver-
sion, they are a nice diversion. But that’s what they will remain. A momentary
diversion in between spoon-feedings [Winter, 2008].
This attitude bears comparison to the notion of “slans” in science fiction fan-
dom — those who consider themselves in possession of an unspoken truth
bestowed by superior intelligence and familiarity with particular texts. How-
ever, where slans perceived their authority to be grounded in a tacit under-
standing of science and the world-changing potential of technology ( James,
1994, p. 136), the evangelist gamer occupies a far more conservative position.
Here, the “truth” that is celebrated is the benefit of active participation in an
intellectually challenging and social hobby as set against a society where main-
 6. Hobby Gamers 143

stream entertainment media are viewed as passive and undemanding. As gamer

Nikodemus Solitander observes, if modern board games are ever to be accepted
into the mainstream, perhaps what is required is a fundamental shift in the
values of society:
I see ... the question to be similar to “How can we make gay erotica main-
stream within the book industry?” You’ll have your occasional gay erotica
book breaking over — but it’ll be hard to make the whole genre mainstream
without a societal change in values. A societal change in values would within
board games convert into people leaving the computer game ideal of fast set-
ups, no rule books, pick-up and deliver, and instead opt for regular quality
family time and meeting up with friends, developing patience (to read a rule
book) and a will to learn (and teach) rules. I’d love for this to happen but I
don’t think it will — not for a long time [2008].
Not surprisingly, others share Solitander’s appraisal that it is not so much
a lack of intelligence or education but a predisposition towards learning new
game rules that is lacking:
I think a lot of us take the patience and concentration required to understand
most of the popular games on this site for granted.... I’ve sat down (more than
once) with well-educated, intelligent (but non-gaming) people, who have sat
there getting exasperated as I’ve tried to explain the rules of something as
“simple” as Carcassonne to them [King, 2008].
Almost every game that I like to play (except for some party games) have rules
that are too detailed and too difficult for most non-gamers to bother to
understand. It’s not that they’re dumb. Far from it. But would a person watch
TV if it came with an instruction manual that made you read carefully for 20
minutes or so before you can activate it? And if you had to do that every time
you changed the channels (new show = new game), don’t you think most peo-
ple would skip it? [Cox, 2008].
The conviction that eurogames might gain mainstream popularity given
sufficient exposure is one of the most interesting qualities of modern board
gaming culture. Although some hobbyists are dismissive of the potential appeal
of board games, it has been my experience that most are, to some degree,
actively involved in evangelizing the hobby to others. In part this can be
attributed to the fact that the play of board games requires a consistent supply
of opponents, but it is more commonly inspired by a genuine desire to share
the pleasures of the hobby.
Ironically perhaps, the one area where eurogames are making significant
inroads into mainstream gaming culture is through the adaptation of popular
titles for a variety of video game platforms. As mentioned earlier, titles such
as The Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne have been successfully deployed on
Microsoft’s Xbox console, while an increasing number of lesser-known games
144 EUROGAMES

are finding a new home on smart phones and tablet devices. Whether these
implementations can still be considered board games is a matter for debate.
Certainly in cases where players are not co-located there are likely significant
ramifications for the way that play unfolds as a social activity. Still, the success
of these titles points to the resilience of European-style designs in crossing
media boundaries. While the chances of The Settlers of Catan replacing Monop-
oly as a family staple are perhaps small, all indications are that games that
were previously only known to a niche audience are beginning to gain some
visibility outside hobbyist circles.

The Gaming Hobbyist

Involvement in a leisure world presumes a store of knowledge — information
that enables the competent doing of that activity.— Fine, 1989

While hobbyists involved with a site like boardgamegeek may be seen as

a new phenomenon enabled by the Internet, the existence of gaming com-
munities centered on a particular field of interest is not exclusive to digital
environments. Gaming conventions and dedicated fanzines were in existence
long before the advent of the Internet and served to create what Benedict
Anderson terms an “imagined community”— that is, a sense of community
which arises not from geographic location but from a mental image held by
members which affirms their affinity (Anderson, 1983). For a long time there
have been people who call themselves “gamers.” Yet, as Bruner and Thorne
note, for the isolated fan with no social outlet for discussion of his fanaticism,
online spaces offer a very convenient medium through which to engage with
others and actively participate in a shared culture (2006). As gamer Marshall
Miller observes:
I think that the percent of the population playing games has likely not
changed in the last 30 years (I say thirty because video games have irrevocably
stolen a portion of game players). However, I believe that, via the internet,
gamers are no longer isolated. Before, gamers were limited to the portion of
the population they knew personally. Now, we are seeing a new degree of
gamer interconnectivity. Simply put, we are now just more aware of each
other and it only seems like there are more of us [Miller, 2008].

The interconnectivity that Miller refers to here is manifest on boardgamegeek

through the discussion, evaluation, critique and comparison of games and
play that dominates the site. Moreover, discussion is not limited to the games
themselves, but branches out into reflection upon the industry, the relationship
 6. Hobby Gamers 145

between hobbyists and the broader community, and a plethora of related

interests.
As active participants on a website devoted to board and table games,
survey respondents in this book can be considered representative of hobbyist
board gamers generally. Their familiarity with a broad range of games, and
their active participation in the hobby, differentiates them from the occasional
player and is manifest in a variety of ways. Active participation in the hobby
involves the accumulation of specialist knowledge about game forms. Con-
sequently, there is a tendency to eschew mainstream games for their perceived
lack of meaningful decision-making in play. Although enthusiasm is typically
marked by the ongoing acquisition of new games, as is common in other
forms of hobby gaming, players have a relationship with the industry that is
far more involved than that of a mere consumer. Hobbyists may develop their
own game variants, participate in the creation of content that augments exist-
ing games, and, in some cases, contribute to the hobby through the creation
of their own games. Reflecting this blurring of the line between producer and
consumer, members of the hobby gaming industry are, more often than not,
members of the gaming subculture themselves. Not surprisingly, the shared
enthusiasm for board gaming — particularly eurogames — is not only manifest
within the culture, but is also actively evangelized within the broader com-
munity.
My reason for emphasizing the degree of involvement with gaming cul-
ture in this chapter is that, as Fine notes, active participation in a leisure
world involves the accumulation of specialized knowledge, not only about the
activity but also concerning how that activity is competently performed
(1989). Of course, the idea that there is a “right way” to play a particular
game or that there exists a formal set of guidelines that shape play is disin-
genuous. Hobbyist board gamers are a specific subset of the broader population
whose attitudes to and experience of game play should be understood within
this context. With the understanding that hobby gamers are not typical board
game players, the following analysis of player motivations, expectations and
experience provides insight into the way this particular group understands
competitive social play.
 7

The Pleasures of Play

Gaming isn’t about rolling dice and moving your piece around a track. Gam-
ing is about interactions, decisions and social skills.— Alan Moon, in
Aleknevicus, 2002

In previous chapters I have outlined the demographics of board game

hobbyists, providing an overview of who they are, the games they play and a
variety of ways in which they actively participate in the culture of hobby gam-
ing. In identifying survey respondents as particularly active participants within
hobby gaming culture, I have sought to differentiate this group from those
who merely play board games as an occasional distraction. Although many
people play hobby games, only a small percentage of this number are what
might be considered “hobbyists.” For these people, hobby games have a par-
ticularly strong attraction — broadly speaking, they constitute a significant
part of the individual’s leisure habits. It is clear that activities other than the
playing of games constitute an important part of these players’ enjoyment of
the hobby. With this important distinction in mind, I now turn my attention
to the specific question of how players derive enjoyment from the play of
modern board games.
To this end, in this chapter I examine those elements of board games
and the experience of play from which players derive enjoyment. Firstly, I
review previous theories of motivation and enjoyment as they pertain to games
generally. This provides a context for a discussion of specific mechanics that
are commonly employed in modern board games and their relationship to
player enjoyment. I then identify and discuss broader features that are com-
monly found in board games and the degree to which these elements con-
tribute to enjoyment in games. Drawing on survey responses, I focus
particularly on player preferences in terms of the way that games elicit in-
game interaction. Finally, I discuss the general experience of board game play
and how players view facets of this experience as significant in the overall
pleasure they derive from the play of modern board games.

146
 7. The Pleasures of Play 147

Play, Games and Motivation

It has long been understood that play is, in itself, intrinsically self-
motivating (Verenikina et al., 2003). In the play of children — a topic that
preoccupied early theorists — the inherent attraction of play led many scholars
to theorize its purpose as instinctive and functional. Not surprisingly, these
early ideas were largely founded upon the physical play of young children
who, it was imagined, had an excess of energy that was not available to adults
engaged in work activities.1 Subsequent theories have retained this functional
purpose in attributing to play an important role in the psychological,2 cog-
nitive,3 and social development of children.4
In discussing the propensity for play in human beings more generally,
Johan Huizinga dismisses this emphasis on function, instead proposing that
play — and, more specifically, higher forms of play, such as the contest — oper-
ate in the realm of ritual (1950, pp. 46–75). Huizinga argues that no benefit
need necessarily be gained from play activities since they are entirely intrin-
sically motivating: “[Play] interpolates itself as a temporary activity satisfying
in itself and ending there” (p. 9). Thus, the social, cognitive or physical benefits
that might arise from play are not seen as essential ingredients in the moti-
vation to play, rather the activity is entered into purely for the experience it
provides (Rodriguez, 2006).
The idea that certain activities are entered into solely for the experience
they offer has been elaborated upon by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
in his seminal work Flow: The Psycholog y of Optimal Experience (1990). Orig-
inally advanced in the 1970s, Csikszentmihalyi’s work identifies flow as a state
of “optimal experience” that is brought about by a challenging task with clear
goals that requires a focus of attention:
For an event to offer the potential for flow experience it must be perceived by
actors as intrinsically rewarding, satisfying in its own right.... In flow experi-
ences, self-consciousness is eliminated. Action and awareness are tightly and
reflexively intertwined, merging together [Mitchell, 1988, p. 55].

A number of writers have argued that flow is a state also associated with the
play of video games (Holt and Mitterer, 2000; Sherry, 2004; Cowley et al.,
2008) and of games generally (Koster, 2005, p. 98; Salen and Zimmerman,
2004, pp. 336–339). This pursuit of optimal experience —“satisfying in its
own right”— reflects Huizinga’s assertion regarding the intrinsic motivations
of play. Although games are widely understood to be intrinsically motivating,
the reasons for enjoyment are myriad and may vary widely from game to game
and from player to player. Generally speaking, however, we can assume that
the anticipation of some form of enjoyment is a contributing factor to the
148 EUROGAMES

reasons that people engage in particular leisure activities. While it is not the
only factor, it is certainly an important element in the motivation to play.
Game designer Raph Koster attributes the inherent fun in all games to
the act of cognitive problem solving, suggesting that the pleasure of game
play can be summarized as “the act of mastering a problem mentally” (2005,
p. 90). Nicole Lazzaro focuses on emotion as the central source of player
enjoyment in games (2004). In doing so, she identifies “four keys” that, she
proposes, unlock emotions within players: the “hard fun” that is found in
problem solving; the “easy fun” derived from immersion; the “altered states”
produced by internal experience; and the “people factor” that comes from
viewing games as mechanisms for social experiences. In a more generalized
framework, Marc LeBlanc proposes “eight kinds of fun” that are commonly
derived from video games: sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship,
discovery, expression and submission (2005).
These are just a few examples of the models that have been proposed to
explain player enjoyment of games.5 In reviewing these models, it is clear that
pleasure is derived from a wide variety of emotions and experiences that arise
from the play of games. Why then, given the variety of game forms available
within a society, does an individual choose to play a particular game or style
of game?

Figure 7.1: Three levels of player enjoyment.

 7. The Pleasures of Play 149

As a means of identifying possible reasons in relation to modern board

games, survey respondents were asked a number of questions concerning the
enjoyment of play. Firstly, players were surveyed as to which common board
game mechanics they particularly enjoyed. Secondly, players were asked to
indicate the degree to which a number of specific game elements contribute
to their enjoyment. Finally, players were questioned as to the pleasures they
derived from the experience of board game play generally. This series of
increasingly broader questions forms the basis for a model of player enjoyment
in this chapter (see Figure 7.1). The answers to these questions offer a clear
picture as to why it is that hobbyists choose to play one game over another,
and why they choose to play board games generally.

Player Enjoyment— Mechanics

As I have discussed, eurogames — and board games generally — tend to
draw on a common pool of core mechanics. In this section I wish to explore
the extent to which players associate their enjoyment with the implementa-
tion of specific mechanics. Jesper Juul describes the experience of being a
gamer as “the simple feeling of a pull, of looking at a game and wanting to
play it,” noting that “the [video] game’s pull is a subjective experience that
depends on what games you have played, your personal tastes, and whether
you are willing to give the game the time it asks for” (2010, p. 2). Although
the description of a “pull” is somewhat vague, the idea that play prefer-
ences are dependent upon previous experiences with other games and subjec-
tive notions of taste applies equally to board games.6 Hence, as a starting
point for the discussion of what it is that attracts players to eurogames, my
survey included a question that asked respondents to indicate the degree to
which they enjoy particular mechanics within games. The description of
mechanics was taken from categories on boardgamegeek in order that the
terms used would be familiar to respondents. Figure 7.2 summarizes the
responses to this question, reducing the data to a binary distinction between
mechanics that are “rarely if ever enjoyed” and those that are “usually or always
enjoyed.”7
An immediate observation that arises from this figure is the degree to
which no particular mechanic stands out as being markedly more popular
than others. Rather, there is a gradual scale that highlights an aversion to
luck-based mechanics. Not surprisingly, the most commonly enjoyed mechan-
ics are those that are closely associated with the eurogame genre (e.g., variable
phase order,8 area control, tile placement and action points).9 In contrast, the
least popular mechanics are those that limit the player’s ability to make mean-
150 EUROGAMES

Figure 7.2: To what degree do you generally enjoy the following mechanics/game
styles in board and table games? (summarized for clarity).
 7. The Pleasures of Play 151

ingful decisions (e.g., roll and move, rock/paper/scissors, pattern recognition),

a concern that is reflected in the eschewal of mainstream games discussed ear-
lier.

Player Enjoyment— Game Traits/Elements

The overall impression from the responses above is that players do not
generally favor a particular mechanic but rather the gestalt experience provided
by their implementation. As one player describes:
Game mechanics are not as important as the way in which they are imple-
mented. Depending on the circumstances, I like drinking coffee or a soda or a
beer. But a coffee must be a good coffee, and the beer must be a good beer
[R330].
As discussed earlier, eurogames typically involve a mix of mechanics that
combine to produce an overall game experience. An alternative approach,
then, is to ask respondents which elements of this overall experience contribute
to enjoyment. As a part of preparing my survey I constructed a list of elements
and/or traits that are commonly found in modern board games in order to

Figure 7.3: To what degree is the presence of the following elements important
to your enjoyment of board and table games?
152 EUROGAMES

gauge their importance for hobbyists. This list of constitutive elements was
developed through my own observations and through analysis of critical com-
mentary on the hobby from various sources. While the meanings of these are
mostly transparent, some have more domain-specific denotations within the
board gaming hobby and are explained in more depth in the sections where
I discuss their importance for players. Survey respondents were asked to what
degree the presence of these elements was important in their enjoyment of board
and table games. The responses to this question are detailed in Figure 7.3.

Replayability
The more the game gets played, the more you discover its depth.— R512

The first observation to be gathered from these results is that respondents

consider the potential for replayability as the most important factor in their
enjoyment of games.10 While in theory all games are replayable inasmuch as
the rules are repeatable (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 123), different forms
of game lend themselves more readily to repeat plays. Highlighting this vari-
ability, Juul identifies a basic distinction between what he terms “games of
progression” and “games of emergence” (2005, pp. 67–83). The former
describes those games in which the linear and consecutive nature of the chal-
lenges presented results in a “predefined sequence of events” that a player must
traverse. The most obvious example in hobby gaming is the role-playing
game, which first introduced progression and an explicit narrative as structural
traits of games in the early 1970s.
The nature of games of progression is that, although the rules are repeat-
able, there is rarely any motivation to repeat a sequence of events once the
designed challenge of the game has been overcome. In the case of role-playing
games — which provide a framework for play rather than an explicit sequence
of challenges — the players will complete one quest and embark on another.
In the case of progressive video games, however, when the challenges have
been surpassed, players rarely have a strong motivation to re-attempt them.11
The result is that such games have a limited potential for play and are “pur-
chased, used and eventually cast away like most other consumable goods”
(Hunicke et al., 2004).
Generally speaking, board games are what Juul terms games of emergence12:
Emergence is the primordial game structure, where a game is specified as a
small number of rules that combine and yield large numbers of game varia-
tions for which the players then design strategies for dealing with [Juul,
2002].
 7. The Pleasures of Play 153

Derived from systems theory, science and philosophy, emergence describes

the way that complex patterns arise from a relatively simple set of rules. As
Juul notes, most multiplayer games are emergent in that they are comprised
of a relatively simple ruleset (in comparison with games of progression) that
reveals complex patterns through play (2005, pp. 73–75). The opportunity
that emergence offers for repeated plays is considered of primary importance
for survey respondents when discussing their enjoyment of games:
I like to play a game often enough to have some real insight about options
and paths to victory [R404].
[I enjoy] innovative mechanics that invite a lot of replay until you feel you
have grasped the strategy and tactics [R130].
I like the familiarity of a game I know rather than constantly trying new
games, so a game has to have a lot of replay value, but ideally also not be too
intimidating to beginners, as I play a lot with friends who aren’t experienced
gamers [R744].
I like a game to have layers, to grow and master more components the longer
you play it, rather than be too simple to enjoy after the first few times [R469].
Given the observations made earlier regarding the propensity for gaming hob-
byists to amass a large collection of games, the emphasis upon replayability
here is somewhat ironic. Yet, clearly, survey respondents do appreciate the
opportunity that a game offers for repeated play.

Intellectual Challenge — Strateg y and Tactics

Intellectual challenge — this is why I strive to win, but don’t mind losing. It
is the challenge that is important.— R735

Hobbyists commonly discuss the importance of replayability in terms of

the opportunity for the exploration of tactics and strategy that familiarity
with a particular game provides. Not surprisingly, then, survey respondents
cited the presence of strategic depth and opportunities for tactical play as
highly significant in their enjoyment of particular games. In the context of
games, strategy is broadly understood as the devising and implementation of
longer-term plans in the pursuit of a given goal, while tactics refers to the
momentary decisions by which short-term (lower order) goals are achieved
( Järvinen, 2009, p. 146). Strategic depth and the opportunity for tactical play
offer players decisions with either long- or short-term consequences. That
players enjoy the presence of these elements is reflective of the way in which
they value the intellectual challenge that is derived from meaningful decisions
within a game.
154 EUROGAMES

The presence of strategic depth in a given game is directly connected

with the emergent traits of the abstract game system. For a game to offer play-
ers meaningful decisions, it should have sufficient complexity to afford a vari-
ety of strategies by which players can pursue the game goals without being
so unpredictable that the development of long-terms plans is impossible. The
possibility of anticipating the behavior of a game system is fundamental to
the development of longer-term strategies. This opportunity for the formu-
lation and execution of long-term plans is considered by survey respondents
to be an important factor in their enjoyment of games. 92 percent of respon-
dents indicate that strategic depth is either quite important (47 percent) or
very important (45 percent) to their enjoyment of games:
Strategic depth and meaningful choices are the most important. My favorite
games provide depth while using simple rules [R111].
I really enjoy when a game promotes creativity in strategy and allows the
chance for big moves that catch everyone off guard [R742].
Strategy games that have high levels of social interaction are the type of game
I derive the most pleasure from. They need not be overly complex, but they
should have enough depth that it makes them difficult to master [R180].
I enjoy games which have multiple strategies that can achieve a win. I enjoy
trying the different strategies. A game also has to be challenging enough. I
usually enjoy the games I lose on the first play more on later plays than the
games I win right away [R280].
In the context of board games, tactics can be understood as the imple-
mentation of specific actions that further a player’s immediate position and/or
limit the possibilities for another player to further their position. 92 percent
of respondents consider the opportunity for tactical play as either quite impor-
tant (55 percent) or very important (37 percent) in their enjoyment of a game.
A tactical play may form a part of a broader strategy or it may be an isolated
action — a move of opportunity. Tactics are typically prompted by the behavior
of the game system or by that of other players. The opportunity for this type
of reactive play is considered by survey respondents to be a significant con-
tributor in their enjoyment of specific games:
[I enjoy] developing a plan and then implementing it on the board and mak-
ing the necessary adjustments in response to your opponents’ movements and
strategies [R500].
[I enjoy] Trying to make the best of the situation presented to me by my
opponents’ play and the luck of the game [R642].
I enjoy solving the tactical problems, either complex or simple, presented by a
real opponent [R667].
 7. The Pleasures of Play 155

Eurogames can be largely tactical and/or highly strategic. Although the

term “strategy games” is often used to describe the genre, in actuality they
typically offer a mix of strategy and tactics in much the same way as do classical
abstract games. The common feature in describing these two elements is the
way in which their implementation in a specific game affords meaningful
choices to the player. Strategic and tactical choices are only significant inas-
much as the decision itself is a difficult one. Where one strategy is obviously
more successful than all others, the play of a game becomes predictable and
uninteresting ( Juul, 2005, p. 59). Similarly, if one tactical play is obviously
more beneficial than any alternative, a game can come to feel “scripted”—
that is, the play of the game does not require any decision-making on the part
of the player.
Given the mix of strategic and tactical play that is encompassed by a
typical eurogame, it is interesting to note that survey respondents generally
consider the degree of complexity of a given game to be relatively unimportant.
The suggestion here is that players evaluate games in terms of the framework
for decision-making they present rather than the inherent complexity (or lack
thereof ) of the game system. Thus, a deeply strategic game such as Caylus is
situated within the same genre as a tactical exercise such as Carcassonne; when
implemented effectively, both strategy and tactics offer players intellectually
challenging choices that provide meaningful play. However, since the roots
of eurogames in family gaming generally tends to result in games with a rel-
atively simple ruleset, this challenge is rarely engendered by the operation of
the game system itself, but rather by the decisions that arise from the way that
the game shapes interaction between the players.

The Importance of In-Game Interaction13

When we play, we don’t play the game, we play our opponent. The game just
happens to be the agreed upon arena of play.— Hermosa, 2007

The way that eurogames stimulate decision-making through particular

forms of interpersonal interaction is a distinguishing feature of their play. The
preponderance of goals that focus upon accumulation and mechanics that
afford ownership of game elements results in games where the principal conflict
arises when players seek to gain ownership of the same game element.
Although this observation can be extended to other forms of game, it is the
way in which these conflicts are resolved asynchronously that leads to the
description of interaction in eurogames as indirect.
In eurogames, mastery of the abstract game system rarely constitutes a
156 EUROGAMES

particularly complex challenge. Given the roots of the genre in family gaming
and the associated emphasis on approachability, it is not surprising to find
that the operational rules of the game system are usually relatively intuitive.
In contrast with examples such as wargames and collectible card games, where
comprehensive knowledge of the operational rules commonly requires a degree
of dedication to the game, Lewis Pulsipher has suggested that the systems of
most eurogames can be understood after only one play (2009b). Thus, the
designs of eurogames assume that the core intellectual challenge arises from
the interaction between players. While all multiplayer games draw on this ele-
ment to some degree, the predominance of eurogames designed for more than
two players tends to elevate the significance of player interaction as a deter-
minant of the game outcome. Boardgamegeek founder Derk Solko explains
the impact of multiple players when compared with two-player games:
In any multi-player situation, every move every player takes has effects beyond
the player’s action. In a two-player game, this facet is referred to as “zero-
sum”: every action which is good for me, is bad for you. However, the exis-
tence of other players muddles the equation. Which is why players often just
say, “I’m playing to better my situation.” But as much as players deny it ...
what other players do during the game has more effect on your performance
than what you do [2005].
The importance of player interaction in eurogames stems from the way
that particular mechanics draw on the psychology of competitive play to chal-
lenge players. Unlike single-player games of progression, where mastery of
the underlying game system is the path to completion, in multi-player games
the system generally acts as a framework within which players implement
strategies and tactics in competition with other participants. Pulsipher
describes this characteristic in his discussion of the systemic and psychological
elements of games:
The second part to playing games is understanding how the players interact
with the system, learning how to recognize what the players are trying to do,
and finally figuring out how to forecast and to manipulate the other players.
We might call this knowing the psychology of the game, as opposed to know-
ing the system [2009b].
Pulsipher here is making a distinction that, on the surface, appears quite obvi-
ous. However, it is one that has significant ramifications for understanding
the distinction between social and solitary play. In multi-player games the
ability to read player intent, to anticipate the play of opponents and to manip-
ulate the perceptions of other players is a critical component in successful
play. While understanding a game system allows a player to play the game
competently, it is the interpersonal psychology that the game provokes which
provides the principal challenge. As one respondent observes:
 7. The Pleasures of Play 157

All games have an element of the unknown, as each player will use different
paths to get to the victory conditions. It is that implied chaos that makes games
interesting and so replayable. Games are as much about strategy and tactics as
they are about social interaction and the ability to “read” people [R77].
Given the preponderance in modern eurogames of mechanics that offer
indirect interaction, it is interesting to note that both indirect and direct
player interaction are considered important, though the latter finds slightly
more favor.14 Notably, this does not indicate a preference for direct conflict,
a form of interaction considered relatively unimportant in player enjoyment.15
Rather, players clearly enjoy being able to interact with each other within the
context of a game, either directly or indirectly:
I value interaction in board games. Just as I far prefer multi-player computer
games to single-player ones, I wouldn’t sit down and play a solitaire board
game by myself, but I seek out opportunities to play with others [R93].
The opportunity to interact with others is my most basic pleasure. Another
rewarding aspect is to develop a plan and successfully execute the plan when
all others involved are trying to do the same thing. Challenging and beating a
computer opponent in a game is one thing; to win against other thinking
beings that have the same goal of defeating others is exciting [R722].
I enjoy games with high interaction, either cooperative or competitive. I love
the social aspect that lacks in computer games, even multi-player ones [R352].
[I enjoy] the interaction with the choices other people make in the game and
how the players play off of each other [R371].
As discussed earlier, interaction in eurogames is often indirect, as the
mechanics of the game rarely facilitate the kinds of direct conflict that are
associated with many classical abstract games and Anglo-American hobby
games. Pulsipher notes that eurogame designers are increasingly developing
games in which player interaction is limited and the focus is on players devel-
oping an economic “engine” in relative isolation through the course of the
game. In this style, Pulsipher argues, “the psychological component does not
exist, or barely exists, and the game only has a system component as though
it was a traditional video game” (2009b).16 Given that the majority of survey
respondents indicate a preference for eurogames yet also place a great deal of
emphasis on the interaction derived from game play, a question arises as to
how, if not through direct interaction, eurogames facilitate this psychological
dimension of play in their mechanics.

Interaction in Eurogames
I have previously described a number of informally defined “mechanics”
that are commonly found in eurogames. I also pointed to the fact that, of
158 EUROGAMES

these, set collection and area control were more accurately defined as goal-
types rather than mechanics. If for this reason we omit these two forms, we
are left with the common interaction forms of tile placement, auctions, role
selection/worker placement and trading/negotiation. Each of these forms of
interaction is concerned with gaining ownership of some in-game element,
be they a part of the environment, resources or actions. Interesting is the fact
that of these four, the mechanic of trading/negotiation stands out as one that
is the most direct form of interaction yet is also the only one that is largely
collaborative in nature. For this reason I will discuss this mechanic separately,
following consideration of the other three forms of interaction.
Tile placement is most commonly concerned with gaining ownership of
parts of the game environment. Conflict arises when more than one player
seeks ownership of a particular area. Thus, the conflict is decided asynchro-
nously through a player’s choice to place a particular tile. This choice may
be restricted by the opportunities presented through the game system (e.g.,
random elements), but the onus on the player is to evaluate his or her own
priorities and simultaneously evaluate any other player’s intentions to shape
the environment. This evaluative process informs the decision to place a given
tile at any specific moment or in a particular location.
Role selection and worker placement operate in a similar manner to tile
placement, as players seek to gain ownership of the rights to a particular in-
game action. Again, the decision to select an action is simultaneously informed
by the player’s own priorities and the evaluation of the intent of other players.
In both role selection/worker placement and tile placement, the decisions
faced by the players revolve around prioritization and the evaluation of intent.
Since role selection and worker placement are typically procedural in nature,
as Pulsipher notes, this type of interaction can be characterized as “make the
right choice before the other person does” (2009a).
Auctions in games are used as a mechanism for gaining ownership of a
wide assortment of in-game elements. In examples where the auction is of
the simple “once-around” variety, there is a clear similarity to tile placement
and role selection/worker placement in terms of the nature of the decision.
Here the player is called upon to assess the worth of a particular in-game ele-
ment without necessarily having any explicit information concerning how
much other players value it. In the more common form of English auctions,
a player may have more informed knowledge of an object’s worth through
the evaluation of other players’ bids but must still balance their own valuation
with that of others.
The interactions arising from each of these mechanics are indirect, as
any conflict between players is resolved asynchronously. Following this obser-
vation, it is now clear why players regard area control as a mechanic rather
 7. The Pleasures of Play 159

than a goal, and, furthermore, why Appelcline considers the form very close
to auctions (2005a). The procedural placement of game elements to an area
on the board is similar to the three mechanics discussed here since it calls
upon players to evaluate the worth of particular areas and, as such, draws on
the need for players to read their opponents’ intentions for placement.
Importantly, the mechanics of trading and negotiation typically operate
in a distinctly different fashion than do tile placement, auctions, role selec-
tion/worker placement and area control. Firstly, trading and negotiation are
typically synchronous in that players are simultaneously engaged in the pursuit
of an outcome. Secondly, unlike the mechanics discussed above, the perform-
ance of negotiation with other players is a collaborative one in which multiple
players seek optimal results. Thus, eurogames commonly use indirect inter-
action to resolve conflict and direct interaction to facilitate collaboration.
Die Siedler von Catan can be used to highlight this distinction between
forms of conflict and collaboration. Through the course of the game players
build settlements, cities and roads on a hex-based map of limited size. Since
players may not encroach on another player’s buildings, there is conflict
between players to establish roads and settlements quickly — to gain ownership
of the game environment — before the available space is used up. As players
take their turns, this conflict is resolved asynchronously with each player seek-
ing to “make the right choice before the other person does.” However, since
the construction of these game elements requires resources that are unevenly
distributed between players, they must negotiate trades in order to build.
Here the interaction is synchronous and therefore direct, but is not a source
of conflict but rather an opportunity for collaboration.
In each of the mechanics described above, it is clear that competent
gameplay requires the ongoing evaluation of player intent. The ability to assess
the importance of in-game elements to another player requires the formation
of a mental model of that player’s intention for future actions within the game.
Similarly, evaluating the worth of a particular element in the context of an
auction or a trade is dependent upon making assumptions about the value
others place upon that item. These skills are some of those to which Pulsipher
refers when he describes the psychology of a game. They are certainly an ele-
ment of player interaction that survey respondents enjoy:
[I enjoy] the ability to distinguish what other players are doing, and why. See-
ing different strategies in action is a lot of fun [R190].
[I enjoy] setting up a strategy; guessing other players strategys [sic]; surprising
and misleading other players [R1].
[I enjoy] trying new strategies and coming up with a really good one that wins
the game. It usually gets quickly adapted to, forcing you to try more new
160 EUROGAMES

strategies or to disguise your intentions. I love the move/countermove think-

ing in many games. It is very satisfying to correctly predict what your oppo-
nent will do while deceiving them as to your own intentions [R395].
In part, the ability to perform this type of assessment is dependent upon
familiarity with the game system. Players use their knowledge of the game
system and strategies that can be employed to infer the possible intentions of
other players. Since the number of choices presented to players in eurogames
is typically limited, and the complexity of the game system relatively low
(inasmuch as it can be performed by analysis of the game state), this prediction
of intent is far easier than in games such as Chess.
Given Pulsipher’s observation that board games — particularly those in
the eurogame genre — have become increasingly less interactive and more
focused on individual achievement, it is interesting to note that enthusiasts
of the genre place such a great degree of importance on the presence of in-
game interaction. The suggestion here is that players simply value the presence
of interaction more than the amount of interaction a game offers. While titles
such as Puerto Rico, Die Fürsten von Florenz and Goa are exemplary of this
design style, none are entirely devoid of interaction. As Greg Aleknevicus
observes, board games without any interaction are extremely rare (2002).17 As
a number of survey respondents observe, without some degree of interaction
there really is very little game:
I’m not adverse to multi-player solitaire; however, it can get boring when
completely unmitigated — I would say that being able to affect each other is
what makes a game truly fun and dynamic [R640].
I enjoy an intellectual competition against another person, or multiple people.
The puzzle-solving aspect is key, so while I enjoy games with high player
interaction, I can also be happy with low-interaction games. But some interac-
tion is required, or else one is playing against a set of rules and not a person
[R447].
While the importance of some form of interaction is held to be a con-
stitutive element of games in many scholarly definitions,18 it is important to
note that players here are referring specifically to interaction with other players
rather than with the game system:
I like games with lots of interaction between the players (whether direct or
indirect). You want to play versus your friends, and not just versus the system.
I don’t want to be playing solo in a multi-player affair [R35].
I enjoy games where I get to directly interact with other players. Games with
auctions, negotiations, trading, bargaining are my favorites [R192].
[I enjoy] player interaction. Whether we are working together or against each
other having everyone involved through as many phases of play as possible is
most important to me [R262].
 7. The Pleasures of Play 161

The best games are ones that require a good amount of discussion and interac-
tion among players but not in excess.... If I wanted to play a game without
talking to people I’d have stayed home and played it online [R145].
While eurogames typically offer little opportunity for direct conflict,
they operate to promote social interaction between players on two levels.
Firstly, the asynchronous mechanics that focus on gaining ownership call upon
players to carefully evaluate their opponents’ intent. This form of interaction
shifts the focus of play away from the game space and towards other players.
As Parlett describes of modern games generally, the play is centered “above
the board, in the minds of the players themselves” (1999, p. 7). Secondly,
through synchronous interactions, such as trade, players collaborate in the
pursuit of mutually beneficial outcomes. It is clear that for survey respondents
this kind of stimulated and mediated interaction remains an important factor
in their enjoyment of specific titles.

Components and Graphics

Players place a high value on the physical and aesthetic properties of
board games. Graphical presentation was deemed very important (23 percent)
or quite important (53 percent) by 76 percent of respondents. Component
quality was considered to be very important (25 percent) or quite important
(56 percent) by 81 percent of respondents. For the most part, players indicated
that the general production quality of a game contributes significantly to their
enjoyment:
I love the beautiful boards and components, and opening the new box and
punching out the pieces [R50].
I do like an attractive, well laid out board, with lovely pieces [R377].
I love a beautiful gameboard, beautiful pieces and quality in general [R517].
Games which are well produced are visually uplifting [R97].
The elements of both graphical presentation and high-quality compo-
nents contribute towards what Hunicke et al. term the “game as sense-
pleasure” (2004). In particular, as designer Jesse Schell notes, the tactile nature
of physical game play is closely related to the pleasure of playing with a toy
(2008, p. 109). Reflecting this association, a number of survey respondents
referred explicitly to the tactile aesthetics of board and table games as a con-
tributing factor in their enjoyment:
For some games, Days of Wonder titles or dexterity games or the GIPF series I
just love the bits. It’s a pleasure to handle them, and the great bits can make
up for inadequacies in gameplay [R369].
162 EUROGAMES

I appreciate that the games I play are tactile and physical objects that can be
manipulated within a system of simple rules [R120].

I also take a great amount of pleasure from simply handling the pieces and
moving them around [R79].

While the importance of game play is apparent in the comparative weight

respondents place upon replayability and interaction, it is clear that the visual
aesthetics and component tactility of board games are highly valued. Greg
Costikyan has attested to the significant impact that presentation and com-
ponent quality can have on the experience of a game:
As an example of the difference that mere sensation can make, consider the
boardgame Axis and Allies. I first bought it when it was published by Nova
Games, an obscure publisher of hobby games. It had an extremely garish
board, and ugly cardboard counters to represent the military units. I played it
once, thought it was pretty dumb, and put it away. Some years later, it was
bought and republished by Milton Bradley, with an elegant new board, and
with hundreds of plastic pieces in the shapes of aircraft, ships, tanks, and
infantrymen — I’ve played it many times since. It’s the sheer tactile joy of
pushing around little military figures on the board that makes the game fun to
play [2002, pp. 26–27].

Board games draw upon the tactile pleasures associated with toys. The descrip-
tion Costikyan provides of “pushing around little military figures” brings to
mind the pleasures of childhood play with miniature worlds that Chaim Gin-
gold posits as a source of gratification in the play of video games (2003).19
Notably, the tactility of board games and the opportunity they provide to
interact directly with the game world were explicitly compared with the intan-
gibility of video games by a number of respondents:
I like the physical nature of board games compared to computer/video
games — rolling dice, holding cards, collecting wooden cubes [R580].
I love the “unplugged” nature of board games. Everything else in my life
seems to be digital, it is really nice to sit down at a table with some friends
and have a good time with just some simple bits of wood and paper [R735].

Graphical presentation and component quality clearly contribute to

player enjoyment in eurogames, as they provide aesthetic pleasures while also
introducing tactile sense-pleasure through the opportunity to interact phys-
ically with the game. The fact that respondents cite this trait as more significant
in their enjoyment than the presence of an integrated theme or innovative
mechanics is perhaps surprising, given the emphasis on game play that is com-
monly the focus of hobbyist discussion and critique. Clearly this aesthetic
dimension is an important one, a fact that has not escaped notice in other
 7. The Pleasures of Play 163

areas of the hobby game industry where the quality of eurogames has
prompted a rise in production values generally.

Theme and Mechanics

The contribution of integrated theme and innovative mechanics to player
enjoyment is not as significant as might be anticipated given the amount of
discussion that these two elements generate among hobbyists. While these
elements are important to a sizeable number of players, as noted, they are
both considered less important than the production quality of a given game.
Given the emphasis within the eurogame genre upon the novel imple-
mentation of mechanics, it is surprising to find that only 20 percent of respon-
dents consider this trait as very important, with 51 percent describing it as
quite important. Respondents who do value the implementation of innovative
mechanics are generally those for whom the exploration of the emergent prop-
erties of the game is an important source of pleasure:
I really like innovative mechanics. The novelty factor of exploring a new game
and seeing something new is really engaging [R404].
I like to look how rules and mechanics of the game work. I’m always excited
when I find a new way to use the mechanic, be it legal in the game or not. Of
course, if it’s illegal in the game, I won’t do it, unless we house-rule it to be
legal. I’m just interested in the mechanics and their possibilities and interac-
tions [R576].
As discussed previously, theme in eurogames is often only circumstan-
tially related to the mechanics of the game. Nevertheless, it is clear from this
survey that the thematic premise remains an important element in player
enjoyment. Indeed, several respondents explicitly referred to the sense of nar-
rative and story that is created by weaving theme and mechanics together:
Looking top-down, the best gaming experiences are those which have a fluid
connection between their “narrative” on the high end down into the game’s
“mechanisms” on the low end. My definition of integrated theme would be a
context which allows for the mechanisms of gameplay to easily create different
story arcs when playing that same game multiple times [R56].
I love integrated, very interesting and immersive themes combined with very
nice, theme-integrated mechanics with some competition and sense of narra-
tive [R212].

This “sense of narrative” is typically not something that eurogames are

renowned for. However, it is important to recognize that the relationship
between theme and mechanics is largely a subjective one. That is, what to
164 EUROGAMES

one person may seem a well-integrated theme may to another appear merely
loosely connected with the mechanics. A good example of this subjectivity
can be found in discussions of Knizia’s Euphrat and Tigris, which is seen by
some players as a richly thematic game of development in the cradle of civi-
lization and by others as a dry, abstract game of tile placement.
Where players do discuss specific themes and mechanics, there is often
a reference to the kinds of constructive endeavors that are typically emphasized
in the design of eurogames:
I prefer themes that relate to building and improving. Games that involve
building a point generating “engine” are favourites of mine [R177].

I like games that are not so much about hurting other players as making
moves that help them less than they help you (e.g., role selection in Puerto
Rico.) I enjoy “building something” over the course of the game — managing
resources in order to most efficiently convert them into points by the game’s
end. I like conflict where other players can interfere in this process (e.g., in
Caylus, claiming a building that you need or beating you to the castle), but
not where they can somehow take away or tear down what you’ve already done
(e.g., in Settlers, by stealing a resource from you using the robber or a Monop-
oly card) [R176].

In eurogames, where the subject matter is often an afterthought or is

only loosely applicable to the core mechanics, players are invited by the
thematic presentation of the game’s rules to view the mechanics through the
lens of this theme, and thus it is inevitable that their experience of the game
be shaped by it, however loosely applied. Where in other forms of hobby
game the accuracy of simulation might be considered a measure of a game’s
worth, the popularity and preponderance of eurogames without a tightly inte-
grated theme suggests a shift away from this model in hobby game design.
Certainly this survey suggests that while a significant number of players appre-
ciate the effective implementation of mechanics that reflect a theme, such
verisimilitude is typically not foremost in the minds of players as a source of
enjoyment.

Luck and Chaos

The presence of random elements in a game contributes to unpredicta-
bility by ensuring that the initial game state and/or flow of the game are
different during each iteration of play. Respondents did not consider the
presence of luck in a game to be particularly significant in their enjoyment,
perhaps since the introduction of random elements into a game system
 7. The Pleasures of Play 165

reduces the possibility for strategy formation, a trait of games that is consid-
ered important by players. For the most part, survey respondents did not seem
to object to the presence of luck, but rather considered it unimportant in
their enjoyment. Most commonly, randomness was considered acceptable as
long as it was not perceived as pivotal in determining the outcome of the
game:
[I don’t enjoy] too much randomness or luck which can’t be mitigated or aug-
mented by strategic/tactical play [R680].
I enjoy an element of luck in games because I like the excitement it brings,
but it shouldn’t dominate [R456].
I have no problem with luck as long as it does not directly influence the win-
ner of the game (for example, Risk is fine, the luck is predictable and, if
planned for, avoidable) [R697].
The presence of chaos is also considered by players to be unimpor-
tant in their enjoyment. In common parlance, chaos refers to events that
are either unpredictable or random. In gaming terms, chaos describes ele-
ments that are determined by the actions of other players but sufficiently
unpredictable as to be perceived as random events.20 Chaos is closely tied to
two factors: player numbers and the degree to which they can alter the game
state. In a game of Chess one does not perceive the actions of the opponent
as random events. Yet when the number of players is increased — as is often
the case with eurogames — there is often a rise in the perception that the sum
of player actions is random. Salen and Zimmermen refer to this element as a
“feeling of randomness” and describe the experience in the game of Chinese
Checkers:
If you closed your eyes and opened them only when it is your turn to move, it
might seem like the board is merely reshuffling itself, particularly in the mid-
dle period of the game, when the center area is most crowded. This feeling of
randomness is only an illusion, however, as there is no formal chance mecha-
nism in the game. Perfectly logical players (who only exist in hypothetical
examples) wouldn’t feel any randomness: they could look at the board and
immediately trace every move back to a series of strategic decisions [2004, p.
176].
While the hypothetical players that Salen and Zimmerman describe might be
able to distinguish the pattern of plays that occur in an open-information
abstract game, the prevalence of imperfect information and the implementa-
tion of truly random elements in eurogames contributes to the perception of
such events as being beyond player discernability. Given the importance play-
ers place upon strategic planning, it is not surprising to find that the presence
of chaos is not a significant contributor to player enjoyment.
166 EUROGAMES

Summary — Player Enjoyment of

Game Traits/Mechanics
So far this chapter has focused upon the traits of specific games as a
source of player enjoyment. In the case of individual mechanics, there is a
general preference for those mechanics that are associated with the eurogame
genre, and a relative aversion to those that are perceived as being overly
dependent on randomness. In terms of the general framework for play that a
specific game provides, players value the opportunity for meaningful decision-
making and in-game interaction. Together, these two elements contribute to
the replayability that is seen as crucial in player enjoyment of a particular
game.
The importance of graphical presentation and component quality is val-
ued, as it contributes to the overall aesthetic pleasure derived from the game.
Similarly, elements such as the presence of innovative mechanics, integrated
theme and random factors are valued only as they contribute to the overall
experience of game play. Although these elements contribute to player enjoy-
ment, their presence is typically viewed as unimportant in comparison with
the opportunities for meaningful decision-making and in-game interaction
that a game provides.
Taken together, these results indicate a clear preference among hobbyists
for games that afford strategic and tactical play while also offering in-game
interaction. The preference for both of these elements bears comparison with
other forms of game. Were strategy and tactics alone of primary importance,
then one could argue that traditional two-player abstract games such as Chess
and Go would be far more suitable. Conversely, were the opportunities for
in-game interaction the defining attraction, party games such as Pictionary
(Angel, 1985) and Charades would better fit player preferences. From these
survey responses it is clear that it is the combination of interpersonal inter-
action and intellectual challenge commonly found within this genre that are
the most valued elements of particular games. Given this preference for intel-
lectually challenging and socially interactive games, I now turn my attention
away from specific game elements to the general experience of play and the
pleasure that hobbyists derive from it.

Player Enjoyment— General Experience of Play

I think the reason that I enjoy games so much is because it gives people another
venue in which to interact with one another; a venue that is often overlooked
that stimulates both the intellect and the social side of your personality simul-
taneously. There are very few, if any other, activities that do this.— R419
 7. The Pleasures of Play 167

Figure 7.4: From what aspects of play do you derive the most pleasure generally?
(open-ended).

As a final question focused upon player enjoyment, respondents were

asked which elements of board game play generally they found enjoyable.
Unlike the previous questions where respondents were presented with a pre-
defined range of options, this question was open-ended. Thus, respondents
were able to express in their own words the principal pleasures they derive
from play.21 The results of this analysis, displayed in Figure 7.4, reveal the
degree to which the constitutive elements of games are considered secondary
to the overall social experience of play.
For the most part, the ordering of in-game elements as they contribute
to player enjoyment is similar to the findings detailed earlier. Most obviously,
strategic play and in-game interaction are again cited as important elements
in player enjoyment. Similarly, theme, mechanics and production quality
occupy comparable relative positions as when specific game elements were
identified. Undoubtedly, these results suggest that the most important factor
in player enjoyment of eurogames is the general quality of the social experience
that they foster.
In proposing a model of social interaction within multiplayer games,
José Zagal offers a distinction between interaction that is stimulated by the
168 EUROGAMES

game and that which is spontaneous and voluntary (2000). Zagal cites games
such as Tag and Disease (Stevens, 1998) as those wherein the mechanics of the
game specifically call upon players to interact socially. As identified earlier, a
number of mechanics commonly implemented in eurogames are used to gen-
erate this kind of social interaction (e.g., auctions, negotiations, etc.) However,
it is not this form of in-game interaction that players are describing when
they cite the pleasure of social interaction as principle in their enjoyment, but
rather the spontaneous interaction that occurs as a by-product of game play.
As Zagal observes, the presence of this kind of spontaneous interaction
within a specific instance of a game is completely independent from the nature
of the game itself, but is rather a product of player composition (2000, p.
452). Theoretically, it is possible to play all multiplayer games without any
spontaneous interaction whatsoever. Yet as Zagal also notes, “It is hard to
imagine playing a board game of any sort without engaging in idle talk with
other players” (p. 451). Where we might envisage a multi-player game played
over the Internet without such spontaneous interaction, the shared physical
space and components have a profound effect on the nature of the game
encounter. Indeed, in co-located play, participation typically involves far more
than the performance of game mechanics.
In understanding this relationship between games and interaction, the
work of sociologist Erving Goffman is particularly relevant. In his essay “Fun
in Games,” Goffman describes the play of co-located games as a type of
“focused gathering”:
For the participants, this involves: a single visual and cognitive focus of atten-
tion, a mutual and preferential openness to verbal communication; a height-
ened mutual relevance of acts; an eye-to-eye ecological huddle that maximizes
each participant’s opportunity to perceive the other participant’s monitoring
of him [1961, pp. 17–18].

Goffman perceives a clear distinction between what he terms “gaming,” a

gathering of players who “are face-to-face with the avowed purpose of carrying
on a game,” and a “gaming encounter,” a focused gathering that includes the
play of games. The difference here, as Goffman describes, is that “the first
kind of subject matter is codifiable and clean, the second is very sticky.”
The distinction that Goffman describes has obvious similarities with that
made by Zagal between required in-game interaction and the informal social
interaction that surrounds the play of games. Respondents appear to demon-
strate an understanding that co-located play not only involves interactions
derived from the play of the game but also from the context of the social envi-
ronment. Goffman uses the term “spontaneous involvement” to describe the
way in which a participant in a gaming encounter is caught up in the social
 7. The Pleasures of Play 169

moment as much as in the game itself (p. 37). He describes three reasons why
such involvement is significant. Firstly, the acknowledgment of shared focus
provides a sense of security for all players. Secondly, it increases relatedness
through mutual involvement. Finally, it confirms the reality of the shared
world of play (1961, p. 40).
Significantly, Goffman suggests that it is only in face-to-face play that
this spontaneous involvement can be communicated to other players.
Although he writes before the emergence of computer-mediated play, Goff-
man’s observations regarding games played at a distance are equally applicable
to these forms22:
Multi-situated games and game-like activities can define the situation for their
participants and create a world for them. But this is a loose world for the indi-
vidual, allowing for periods of lack of interest and for wide variation in atti-
tude and feelings.... The world of a multi-situated game can be lightly
invested in, so that while the game defines the situation it does not bring the
situation into lively existence [1961, p. 41].
It is this “lively existence” that defines the play of co-located games as social
experiences. Where we might talk about “social games” and incorporate
into this definition any game played by multiple players, the experience of
co-located play is circumscribed by the spontaneous interactions from
which players derive pleasure and from which they indicate their involve-
ment to other participants. As respondents indicate in this survey, it is not
so much the in-game interactions that provide the pleasure of play, but the
shared involvement and the social interactions that arise from the gaming
encounter.
Researcher Nicole Lazzaro describes the pleasure engendered by this rich
social interaction as “people fun” (2004). Board and table games bring players
together within a shared social space — typically a domestic one — and thus
require a capacity for informal sociability. The process of coming together
and engaging in conversation within an informal environment necessarily
provides context for the more formal experience of playing a game. As Lazzaro
describes, the attractiveness of this form of interaction is evident in those
players who say “it’s the people that are addictive not the game” (2004).

The Play and Not the Game

Gaming unplugged is all about social interaction.— R509

At the beginning of this chapter I cited designer Alan Moon’s description

of board games wherein he claims that games are not “about rolling dice and
170 EUROGAMES

moving your piece around a track” (in Aleknevicus, 2002). As a professional

game designer, it is particularly telling that Moon dismisses the idea that
board games are about the mechanics that define play. Instead, claims Moon,
“Gaming is about interactions, decisions and social skills.” The survey
responses that I have summarized here go a long way to confirming Moon’s
observation.
Of the pleasures derived from games specifically, it is the opportunities
for decision-making and interaction that players value most highly. Elements
such as immersion and narrative that have such a significant place in the study
of video games are considered comparatively unimportant when set against
the possibilities for meaningful interaction with other players within the con-
text of the game. The importance of this decision-making as intellectual chal-
lenge, and the dependency upon interaction with other players, is highlighted
by a number of player responses:
I derive most pleasure from working out my brain, in a socially interactive set-
ting. I can do either (work out my brain or interact socially) on its own, but
there is a synergy between the two that gets my whole brain abuzz that isn’t
really achieved by much else [R7].
I prefer involved games in a social environment. I prefer a social environment
for play, however don’t really enjoy “party games.” I like involved games,
where you have to think about the game, but lots of people who play these
can get too serious and don’t have a chat while in the game. Any game that
can combine social environment but be fairly involved works well for me
[R195].
I enjoy challenging games that force me to use different strategies. I also like
to be able to experience these games with others in a fun, social atmosphere
[R305].
I love to play for the play and for the social interaction between friends that a
boardgame originates. It’s much better than playing a console or computer
game, and it really exercises your intellect and imagination. It’s a good intel-
lectual exercise that I love to do and is not rivaled by anything [R672].

Above all other constitutive elements of particular games, respondents

valued the pleasure of the game encounter and the spontaneous interaction
brought about by participation in the social event of the game. When asked
to describe in their own words what it is that they enjoy about play, the pro-
portion of respondents who cite the social interaction afforded by face-to-
face gaming is far higher than those citing any in-game element:
Social interaction is very important, as the entire reason I play is to get with a
group of people to have fun. If I wanted to do something by myself I’d do
something else [R13].
 7. The Pleasures of Play 171

I play games as a way to relax, spend time with family and friends. These are
social games [R143].
I enjoy the social interaction. I have a regular weekly game group that will try
any game. We can experiment struggling through something new, or play an
old favorite, it doesn’t matter, the conversations, in-jokes, and fun remain no
matter what. If the social interaction wasn’t there, there is not a point to play
[R164].
What I like most about playing boardgames is that it gives me a good social
outlet. It’s “play,” with all that suggests, and it allows social interaction over a
particular event [R608].
I think I play games at this point more as a social medium than to find a
specific in-game experience. The eurogame model of design has allowed for
people to get together for an evening of play, with some chit chat and snacks,
to enjoy the games and interacting with each other. I wouldn’t characterize the
games themselves as the most enjoyable for what I want out of a game, as they
tend to be a little too abstract and themeless; however, I bend to the reality of
time and other obligations and get what I can out of the games that work for
the group [R361].

The comments listed here are just a few of the many that emphasized the
social experience of play as paramount in the enjoyment of board games gen-
erally. Such responses indicate why enthusiasts have a tendency to evangelize
the hobby — it is not so much the games that are being evangelized, but the
sense of sociability and security that must necessarily accompany them. That
is, it is not the game, but the game encounter, that provides this. The par-
ticular form of semi-structured social interaction that spontaneously occurs
through co-located play provides an intrinsic motivation to engage with the
hobby.
The importance placed by players on social interaction stands in contrast
to a number of the pleasures that were earlier identified as being associated
with video game play. While Csikszentmihalyi’s model of flow may be appli-
cable to the focused play of a game, as Sweetster and Wyeth note, social inter-
action often serves to disrupt immersion and thus the flow state (2005).
Koster’s suggestion that cognitive problem solving provides the fun in games
is reflected here to a degree; yet when Koster describes the “social fun” that
can be derived from play, it is framed largely in terms of schadenfreude,23 a
focus on achievement that was largely absent in responses. Lazzaro too men-
tions schadenfreude, although her estimation of social pleasure is closer to the
findings of this survey, as she discusses the camaraderie that is brought about
by shared goals. Finally, Hunicke et al.’s notion of fellowship, which sees
games as a “social framework,” falls closest to the types of pleasure described
by participants in emphasizing the playful social interaction engendered by
172 EUROGAMES

games as a principal source of enjoyment. As Goffman notes, “While it is as

players that we can win a play, it is only as participants [in the gaming
encounter] that we can get fun out of this winning” (1961, p. 37).
Despite the emphasis I have placed here upon the social aspect of gaming,
it must nevertheless be acknowledged that the specific avenue for interaction
remains the games that are played — in this case eurogames. The interaction
that occurs through play is situated within a specific semi-structured envi-
ronment that emphasizes competition. While the design of eurogames tends
towards indirect or asynchronous interaction, the fact remains that the intel-
lectual challenge to which players attribute so much of their enjoyment is
focused specifically upon engaging in competition with others. Thus, as much
as the formal game structure prescribes the pursuit of goals, players are simul-
taneously called upon to engage in competition while at the same time main-
taining the sociability that is at the heart of the encounter.
Yet as Goffman notes, the participant in a gaming encounter is far
removed from an ideally rational player whose focus lies purely on the game
(1961, p. 38). Although the game rules, both explicit and implicit, describe a
structure for interaction that constitutes a world apart from the real, “The
character and stability of this world is intimately related to its subjective rela-
tionship to the wider one” (p. 80). As players are caught up in spontaneous
involvement with the gaming encounter, the world apart that is ideally created
by participation in the game cannot be entirely separated from the context in
which the encounter occurs. As has been seen through these survey responses,
to set aside this spontaneous sociability would be to ignore what makes the
activity so enjoyable. Thus the question arises as to how it is that players are
able to maintain the competitive drive mandated by the game within such an
environment. It is to these ostensibly incompatible motivations — competition
and sociability — that I turn my attention in the next chapter.
 8

Goals and Outcomes

in Social Play

The true gamer doesn’t play for winning, but he knows that trying to win
creates the “plot” in a game. Therefore s/he adheres to the plot “everybody tries
to win” easily, but can immediate [sic] forget the failure as the enjoyment of
the game moved on by the plot is bigger than the disappointment of not win-
ning.— Eggert in Heli, 2007

In the previous chapter I identified the key aspects of board game play
that appeal to hobbyists, noting that while certain game elements may con-
tribute to player enjoyment, generally speaking it is the social aspect of play
that provides the principal form of pleasure. While intellectual challenge, in-
game interaction and a variety of other elements are considered significant as
traits of specific games, the overall pleasure derived from games is found in the
sociability that accompanies play. Given that the vast majority of modern
board games are ostensibly framed around competition, a question arises as to
how players negotiate competitive play within the social context that surrounds
the gaming encounter. In short, how do players manage the apparent oppo-
sition between sociability and competition in order to maintain the convivial
atmosphere from which pleasure is derived? In order to examine this question,
it is important firstly to understand what game goals mean to players.

Goals, Outcomes and the Predictable Player

In his book Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional
Worlds, Jesper Juul develops what he terms a “classic game model,” criteria by
which an activity can be defined as a game. Building upon the work of other
scholars, Juul describes six elements that together constitute “an abstract plat-
form upon which games are built” (2005, p. 54):

173
174 EUROGAMES

A game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where

different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in
order to influence the outcome, the player feels emotionally attached to the
outcome, and the consequences of the activity are negotiable [p. 36].
Although Juul uses this model to highlight the way that understandings of
games have been altered by role-playing and digital games (p. 53), he describes
how all of the games contained within David Parlett’s The Oxford History of
Board Games (1999) and The Penguin Encyclopedia of Card Games (2000) fall
within this model. Essentially, Juul’s claim is that, until recently, all forms of
game could be defined using these criteria.
Following Juul’s model, a “classic” game proceeds towards an outcome
that is largely indeterminable at the outset of play. Of the potential and vari-
able outcomes, some are valorized and can be considered “better than others”
(2005, p. 40). In the case of multiplayer games, it is reasonable to assume that
here Juul is referring to the achievement of the winning condition as being
preferable to not achieving it — it is better to win than to lose. The final asser-
tion that Juul makes with regard to the potential outcomes is that “the player
is emotionally attached to the outcome of the game in the sense that a player
will be winner and ‘happy’ in the case of a positive outcome, but a loser and
‘unhappy’ in the case of a negative outcome” (p. 36). In making this claim,
Juul’s focus shifts from the game as an object to the game as subjective expe-
rience. In claiming that “the emotional attachment of the player to the outcome
is a psychological feature of the game activity” (p. 40), he moves from the
realm of formalist game studies into that of play theory, and in doing so raises
a number of questions about the limitations of a structuralist perspective in
dealing with the complex nature of play and motivation. As Markku Eskelinen
notes, the assumption that player motivation is always related to the outcome
of the game “runs the risk of reducing the range of the player’s personal attach-
ments, motivations, styles, and reasons for playing into the mere outcome or
preferring one type of attachment to all the others” (2005, pp. 15–16).
The outcomes of modern board games are variable, quantifiable and val-
orized, at least by the formal rules describing winning conditions. These rules
explain the mechanics through which a player may influence the outcome of
the game, implicitly or explicitly describe the hierarchy of goals, and conclude
with the higher-order goal that prescribes the winning conditions.1 As dis-
cussed previously, the importance of the game goals lies in the way that they
shape player actions. Yet despite the critical position goals hold in defining
and understanding games, in terms of behavior within a play environment,
the notion that player actions are oriented towards goals is one that is “curi-
ously understudied” (Heide Smith, 2005). Game scholars and designers often
take this understanding of player motivation as an a priori assumption. Video
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 175

game scholar Jonas Heide Smith has undertaken significant research into the
assumed goal-orientedness of players in his doctoral dissertation. His research
is concerned with analyzing the “common folk theory” that players want to
win a game (2006, p. 6). He identifies four player models which contribute
to understandings of player behavior. Of these, only two, the rational and the
active player, are actually concerned with player actions during play (pp. 23–
24).2
As Heide Smith observes, the idealized model of the rational player is
the one inherent in texts that focus upon the process of game design and
mathematical game theory (p. 257).3 Consequently, the model is predicated
on a very computational model of player behavior. The rational player’s behav-
iors are motivated entirely by the goals of the game and form an ordered set
of preferences based upon information received exclusively from the game
state and rules. As a model, the rational player provides a baseline from which
deviance can illuminate aspects of the relationship between game and player.
In observing physically co-located players of video games,4 Heide Smith’s
results demonstrate the utility of the rational player in that the model “neatly
predicts in-game behaviour” in terms of general goal-orientedness (p. 239).
Importantly however, he acknowledges that these behaviors are “subjugated
by social norms defining appropriate play” (p. 242). In practical terms, Heide
Smith observed that player behavior within the game space was largely goal-
oriented, while the social context was seen as an opportunity to share helpful
information about the game being played. As one possible motivation for
these differing behaviors, Heide Smith suggests that players are attempting to
introduce a degree of fairness to the gaming encounter. In describing this
incongruence between goal-orientedness during play and the contents of inter-
personal communication, Heide Smith introduces a distinction between the
“game circle,” wherein the rational player pursues his or her goals with com-
mitment, and the “gaming circle” wherein the social expectations of the game
in context are met (p. 228).
In making this distinction, Heide Smith highlights the existence of the
active player — that is, the player who engages in complex practices and social
interactions in ways “often not predicted or prescribed by the game designers”
(p. 24).5 Derived from semiotics and reader-response theory, the active player
is imagined as a participatory agent in the interpretation and configuration
of the game rather than a product of the game’s rules, slavishly bound to the
prescribed goals. Consequently, as Espen Aarseth notes, the active player has
proven a particularly attractive model for those who study digital games.
Examples of transgressive and subversive play, although perhaps “statistically
marginal,” are “nevertheless a crucial aspect of, and key to understanding all
kinds of play and game culture” (2007, p. 131).
176 EUROGAMES

In terms of goal-orientedness, Heide Smith’s study is of particular rele-

vance to this discussion in that he identifies a clear incongruity between formal
understandings of games and the play of the game as a social experience. In
his research into video game players, Heide Smith observes that players limit
their pursuit of fairness to information sharing:
The players display a willingness to help others by giving advice and sharing
information. This indicates that the players find strongly competitive behav-
iour legitimate as long as it is accompanied by a desire to share relevant infor-
mation with other players. Put differently, concerns about fairness do not extend
to gamespace behaviour but clearly mean that performance in the game should
not be a consequence of superior or inferior knowledge about how the game
works [2006, p. 242, emphasis mine].

This sharing of information between players about how the game is played
ensures that each player is conversant with the rules and mechanics of the
game, and that a level playing field is retained. Although Heide Smith refers
to this phenomenon as “self-handicapping,” this is a misnomer. Self-
handicapping is generally defined within studies of play behavior as “the delib-
erate attenuation of the force or intensity of an action by one or other play
partner in order to give the other a better chance of ‘winning’ or at least to
allow more evenly matched encounters” (Boulton and Smith, 1992, p. 436).
As indicated above, Heide Smith finds no evidence of such attenuation in his
research.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the players in Heide Smith’s research are
communicating in order to maintain fairness and a sense of social cohesion.
In the case of video games, however, the division between the game space and
the social space is artificially clear. The video game takes place behind the
screen, while the social interactions surrounding it are located in the “real
world.” This distinction is made apparent when Heide Smith suggests that
While game playing may be one of the few spheres of life where people are in
fact expected and entitled to care only for their own objective interests ...
close-proximity verbal interaction in a couch is not [p. 228].
This distinction that Heide Smith makes between the game circle and the
gaming circle is not only imagined, but also actualized in the separation of
the player environment and the game world as displayed on screen.
The reason I raise this distinction is to contrast this with the nature of
board game play. In a board game, players not only share close physical prox-
imity, but also intimate involvement with the physical components of the
game. They are also engaged with the many mechanics employed in modern
board games that explicitly invoke social interaction between players. Given
the degree to which interpersonal psychology and social negotiations are often
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 177

embedded in the ruleset of a board game, the division between play of the
game and the social interactions brought about by that play is blurred. Where
the screen space of video games allows a clear delineation between the goal-
oriented play of the game and the social expectations that accompany it, no
such boundary exists within the play of a board game other than that con-
structed by the player through the social context and degree of engagement.

The Facilitative Nature of Goals

Clearly, in order to maintain the play of a typical board game, a position
of goal-orientation must ostensibly be maintained, lest the activity ceases to
operate as a competitive game. Reflecting this, the attitudes of survey respon-
dents initially appear to align with the model of the rational player. In reply
to the question of whether they are generally pursuing victory, 79 percent of
players were in general or unequivocal agreement that victory is the goal
towards which they are typically working. Not surprisingly, the most common
reason offered by respondents for this goal-orientedness is that it is essential
in order that the integrity of the competitive game be maintained. Many
respondents demonstrated an explicit awareness of the level of cooperation
required in order to maintain an instance of competitive play. Without each
player working towards the prescribed game goals, the game system becomes
untenable. Indeed, in some cases players viewed the pursuit of goals and the
nature of games as being inseparable:
“Pursuing victory” and “playing a game” are synonymous, so this question is a
tautology [R355].
That’s what makes a game: everybody trying to win. There wouldn’t be a
game if none would want to win [R213].
I believe that playing a game involves an implicit contract between the players
that, among other aspects, requires a mindset that tends towards the pursuit of
victory [R738].
Regardless of the enjoyment derived from socializing with friends and family,
and even as a tool to facilitate that, games are built around victory conditions,
and playing to win is appropriate within that context [R158].
As Linda Hughes notes in the context of children’s play, “a great deal of
cooperation is required to sustain a competitive exchange” (1999, p. 108). The
importance of this complicity is clearly identified by philosopher Bernard
Suits in his discussion of the nature of games. Suits identifies the “trifler” as
the player who, in Chess, is “a quasi-player of the game who conforms to the
rules of the game but whose moves, though all legal, are not directed to achiev-
178 EUROGAMES

ing checkmate” (1978, p. 58). However, when Suits suggests that such a player
lacks the necessary zeal for play and, in abandoning goals, is not actually
engaged in the game (p. 59), he is not drawing on the notion of the individual
rational player. Rather he is explicitly foregrounding the necessity of goal-
orientedness as it serves to facilitate the particular experience that is a game.
Suits’ definition of games clearly acknowledges the arbitrary nature of game
structures, including goals:
To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs, using only
means permitted by the rules, where the rules prohibit use of more efficient
means, and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such
activity [1978, pp. 54–55].
Here Suits is proposing that the purpose of a game is the process of the game.
The rules, goals and limitations placed upon players are there merely to facil-
itate the experience of play. Reflecting this, a number of respondents explicitly
referred to the pursuit of the victory goal as being facilitative rather than pre-
scriptive in the process of play:
Victory gives you a goal to guide you through the game to its conclusion, but
the getting there is much more interesting to me than the end result [R140].
This notion, which sees the goals of the game merely as a means to an end,
is one that was immediately called upon by many players in their responses
concerning the pursuit of victory. Despite the fact that the vast majority of
players conform to a rational model of goal-oriented play (in that they actively
seek victory), it is significant that a sizeable number felt the need to include
some type of qualification in their responses, typically highlighting the expe-
rience of play as the primary goal of a gaming encounter.
Although these respondents share a similar attitude in nominating the
experience of play as the primary goal, the experiences to which they referred
varied. In some cases the experience was the challenge presented in mastering
the game:
I tend to enjoy the games where I tend to lose more than the games where I
succeed. It would seem that I enjoy the challenge a game puts in front of me.
In order to improve, I must learn how the game is best played. A perfect
example for me of just such a game is Power Grid. I have played many times
(almost always with our games group) and yet, I have never won.... The game
forces me to learn, to be adaptive and to watch how others succeed where I
have failed. This process is fabulous. I know that I am alive and a social being
when I play a game like Power Grid [R163].
In others, the fantasy element of play is foregrounded:
Winning is not as important as the process of playing, and particularly experi-
encing the theme of the game — in “Tikal,” for instance, I enjoy the fantasy of
being part of an archaeological expedition more than I enjoy winning [R396].
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 179

Common to these responses, once again, was an explicit understanding that

game goals were facilitative rather than prescriptive. The most common qual-
ification offered in terms of contextualizing goal-orientedness was found in
those responses that focused on the social elements of the game. Understand-
ably, given the social motivations for play identified earlier, many players rec-
ognized the social aspect of the game as holding far greater weight than the
attainment of goals:
The primary portion is actually on trying to establish communications among
players. I enjoy when a game encourages players to talk and discuss among
one another, with cussing allowed if it means making the game more enjoy-
able [R418].
Winning is nice, but the interaction is reason for playing [R224].
I generally enjoy the process of the game. I like doing the game. Victory is
tertiary to socializing [R695].
These responses are typical of players more interested in the social context of
play than the achievement of the prescribed game goals. These players share
an understanding that the principal pleasure of games is to be found in the
sociability they promote. For them, the game itself is largely corollary to the
interactions that stem from play. While such players do not constitute the
majority, the importance of context in the pursuit of goal-orientedness further
highlights the significance of this social element.

Social Context and the Pursuit of Goals

Once while I was still in my twenties my partner in bridge made a stupid
misplay. When I frowned she said that three of them were playing for fun and
she would keep making the same stupid play until I understood that. From
that day I understood the difference.— R603

The importance of the social context in which play occurs can have a
strong influence on the general goal-orientedness of players. The degree of
commitment to the pursuit of the game goals is subject to a variety of con-
textual social influences that shape player behavior. As one player observes:
There is a clear axis here ranging from “decisive result” through to “experien-
tial outcome.” And, as with many of the other axes, people will disagree about
where exactly a particular game should be positioned — and, indeed some
games’ positions depend entirely upon the context in which you are playing.
Carcassonne can be played extremely cut-throat, with players who know
exactly what tiles are available and how to mess things up. Or it can be played
socially, with discussions about the best moves for other players. In one envi-
ronment you play for victory. In another you play for the experience [R587].
180 EUROGAMES

This respondent highlights the way that the social context can shape the play
of a specific game. Players may ruthlessly seek to push every advantage in a
game or they may offer assistance to players and discuss potential moves
openly. The style of play is not a product of the game’s rules but of the social
environment in which it occurs. As Espen Aarseth notes, player understand-
ings of games are often shaped by the social context in which they are first
exposed to them:
The potential player, before becoming an actual player, must receive some
instructions, either from the game itself, or from a guide or accompanying
material. Thus, the player is created, by these instructions, and by his or her
initial learning experience. In many cases, this experience is social, and the
player learns from other, more experienced players [2007, p. 130].

Depending upon the social context, a game of Carcassonne can border

on that of a cooperative game — with rules that explicitly encourage collab-
oration with the active player — an observation that challenges the notion that
the game is competitive. In a competitive sport such as football, this would
be the equivalent of making helpful suggestions as to the best player for the
opposing team to pass the ball to. As this respondent suggests, the decision
of how helpful to be during this phase is largely dependent on the context of
the game and the relationship with other players. In this response we begin
to see how the goals of the rational player fluctuate depending upon the specific
encounter in which play occurs. Notably, the social demands of an encounter
may even override the rational pursuit of victory, shifting the emphasis from
purely game-related considerations to those of the broader social fabric. As
one respondent states, “My first priority is that everyone at the table is having
fun” (R728).
In her studies of children’s social play, Linda Hughes describes the way
in which the structure of the group forms a part of a gaming encounter:
The concern displayed here for how things are done (for “style”), and for
modulation of the single-minded pursuit of the stated point of the game
(“outs”) in light of principles basic to the social life of the group more gener-
ally (like “friends”), is a dominant theme among these players, woven through-
out all episodes of play [1988, p. 685].
The importance of social cohesion and shared enjoyment is a recurring theme
in Hughes’ work. In observing girls’ play particularly, Hughes notes that the
existence of a social matrix overlaying the play of a game meant that “players
who played the game according to its rules, competing as individuals, were
treated as though they were acting in a totally inappropriate and unaccept-
able way” (1999, p. 101). While the influence of peer pressure and other social
factors might not be so apparent in adult play as what Hughes finds with
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 181

children, the “social matrix” she describes is clearly present in these survey
responses. A number of respondents identified a shared responsibility to main-
tain the integrity of the social fabric during the game. For these players the
unbridled pursuit of victory might be suitable in some situations, while in
others an overly competitive approach would be deemed socially inappropri-
ate:
Although I am usually playing to win the game, what is more important to
me is that people want to continue playing the game with me. If I am being
an overzealous jerk, I will soon find myself in a situation where nobody wants
to play a game with me.... I don’t want people to not desire to play games
with me regardless of whether the game is Chess, Apples to Apples, or Catan
[R569].
Here it is apparent the degree to which a player must negotiate the norms of
the specific social setting in which the game occurs. The decision to pursue
game goals without reserve may be tempered by the knowledge that this level
of competitiveness is unsuitable within a particular social context. While the
majority of players attest to pursuing goals generally, when questioned as to
when they might not do so, a wide variety of exceptional circumstances
emerge.

Self-Handicapping in Social Play

Given that the social context of a particular gaming encounter has the
potential to influence a player’s goal-orientedness, players were then asked to
identify situations under which they would not actively pursue victory. The
answers to this question are perhaps the most surprising of any gleaned from
this survey — only 15 percent of players would pursue victory regardless of the
context of play. Given the degree to which the rational player model of goal-
orientedness dominates understandings of player behavior in games, such a
level of deviance from this presumed norm is, in itself, remarkable. 85 percent
of respondents acknowledge that there are situations in which they would be
playing a game without actively seeking to achieve the winning conditions of
the game.
By far the most common situations in which goals are abandoned are
those in which hobbyists are teaching other players who are inexperienced
with a particular game (39 percent). In some cases players displayed the “will-
ingness to help others” that Heide Smith observes in video game players (2006,
p. 242). That is, where there is a perceived disparity in understandings of the
game mechanics, players will seek to redress this imbalance in order to facilitate
a level playing field:
182 EUROGAMES

When there are less experienced players, I will coach them on taking a better
move or strategy, and explain why I’m doing what I am when I move. It
makes it more fun when games are balanced [R590].
If I’m showing some one how to play, or the person isn’t that experienced with
the game. I always give pointers, and try and make sure the other person play-
ing knows what their doing. Beating some one because they have little or no
understanding of what to do, isn’t fun at all [R470].
If I were playing with a less experienced player, I would feel it unfair to not
assist them in understanding the game’s mechanics. A victory would be less
rewarding in that situation for me [R503].
While assisting players with understanding how to play the game may
appear altruistic, there is clearly a degree of self-interest also evident in these
statements. Play with opponents whose skills are not evenly matched often
results in an unsatisfactory game not just for the less experienced player, but
also for the more experienced participant (Zagal et al., 2006). Although the
responses above indicate a degree of latitude in the single-minded pursuit of
victory, the proffering of assistance in understanding the mechanics of a game
falls short of actually abandoning game goals. More interesting are those
respondents who attested to actively self-handicapping through non-optimal
play when opponents are mismatched. Such occasions often coincided with
teaching new players, but, unlike earlier examples directed at assisting in
understanding the game, players here describe actively self-handicapping in
order to improve the experience for their opponents:
If I’m in a situation where I can trounce the other players, I change my
approach.... The most frequent situation where I ease off is when I’m teaching
a new game. Nothing is less fun than having somebody teach you a game, and
then wallop you with their experience in the first match. In such situations I’ll
adjust my technique by secretly adopting a handicap or choose a convoluted
approach to winning [R288].
If I was teaching a game that I like to someone who is not inclined to like it,
I’ll often check myself, and play down to their level, or even let them win so
they will have a positive first time experience [R382].
In a one-on-one session when teaching another player to play a game I would
deliberately take neutral actions which would prolong the game and provide a
more beneficial learning experience to another player. As part of this I would
allow the other player to win if they were able to master the basics of the
game. This helps in encouraging the player to play again and builds self-
confidence in the individual — this could be particularly important if the indi-
vidual was a younger member of the family or a friend who had no experience
of boardgaming. After all, who wants to play a game where they get beat every
time and the experience of the game was so poor that they were not learning
the game, and, what’s more, they felt belittled? [R494].
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 183

In contrast to Heide Smith’s observations of co-located video game play,

these respondents display a willingness to abandon game goals and adopt sub-
optimal strategies in order to facilitate a level playing field and to ensure a
positive experience for other players. In these cases, concerns about fairness
clearly do extend into the game space. When faced with players who have less
experience of a game, or games generally, players express a tendency to pull
back from optimal play in order to artificially maintain a sense of equality.
Significantly, these responses also indicate that the overall experience of other
players, including whether or not they are children, is a factor in this deci-
sion.
The recognition of other players’ experience is also evident in the small
number of responses where players attest to the de-prioritization of game
goals following a series of wins (about 1 percent). Here respondents demon-
strate awareness that successive victories can have a similar effect to game-
specific imbalance:
After I have won a few games in a row (of any combination of games that we
play), I will begin playing a game by making non-optimal choices to start
before pursuing victory (to give other players a chance) [R623].
If I have been on a particularly hot streak of wins, say I’ve beat somebody 30
times in a row, I will throw a game to encourage them so I still have people
that want to play with me [R706].

Taken together, over 60 percent of players acknowledge voluntary self-

handicapping in the face of unevenly matched contests. In the context of play
studies, such a phenomenon should not be unexpected. In the act of play-
fighting, self-handicapping is a “pervasive feature” which becomes more
amplified with increasing asymmetries between antagonists. In the vast major-
ity of such cases, this behavior typically occurs where one participant is “dom-
inant, older or larger,” and where the act of self-handicapping confers a
competitive advantage to an opponent (Pellis and Pellis, 1998, p. 128). Self-
handicapping has been identified in the competitive social play of a number
of animal groups, including apes (Lewis, 2005), canines (Bekoff and Allen,
1998; Bauer and Smuts, 2002; Ward et al., 2008), marsupials (Watson and
Croft, 1996), and rodents (Pellis, 2002). More significantly, it is also a common
feature of children’s competitive play (Aldis, 1975; Smith, 1997; Brown, 1998).
The qualitative responses from this survey certainly confirm the presence of
self-handicapping in the board game play of adult hobbyists.
So far the motivations discussed for de-prioritization of game goals have
hinged on the understanding that a level playing field presents a more enjoy-
able — and fairer — experience for all players. However, within the remarks
made by players, we can begin to see how the broader social context of play
184 EUROGAMES

is a contributing factor to this proclivity. Comments that reference the demor-

alizing effect of losing a game (or successive games) point to the importance
of this social context as influential in a player’s decision to self-handicap. In
some cases respondents indicated that the social fabric of the gaming encounter
was of more importance than the game goals, regardless of any imbalance in
player understanding:
For the enjoyment of the rest of the group, if my winning or aggressive style
of play makes the game less enjoyable for others, I’ll tame it back [R371].
I would not actively pursue victory only if doing so would create a lasting
grudge between myself and my friends [R458].
If it was obvious that it would mean I would have to screw up someone else’s
plans or position in the game to get ahead and they are obviously emotionally
done with my previous successes at doing the same thing to them [R212].
If I see a player ... having a run of bad luck, I will play down to their level to
keep them interested, involved, and happy. I will make moves that I know will
hurt me and help them [R536].
It is evident in these responses that some, if not all, players prioritize the
enjoyment of the game by all participants over the victory condition. Given
the importance of social interaction in their enjoyment of games, it is not sur-
prising to find that maintenance of the social fabric is a consideration for
some players in their decision to pursue victory. Further evidence of influences
from outside of the game is apparent in players who identify longer-term
goals in their decision to self-handicap:
Allowing new learners to win have [sic] a psychological effect on players,
increasing their chance on thinking that a game is fun, and that they may
replay it again. When new players lose, or lose badly, it is natural that they
will have thoughts that this game doesn’t really suit them or to their interest
[R418].
When playing with novices, to show them how the game works, no need to
win, making a new adept is fun enough [R426].
Clearly present in these statements is the evangelistic tendency of board gam-
ing hobbyists that was identified earlier. Here the desire to introduce new
players into the hobby is considered more important than the unbridled pur-
suit of victory. Whether due to a perceived imbalance between opponents,
the press to maintain the social fabric or the desire to introduce new players
to the hobby, all of the motivations discussed here for abandoning the stated
goals of a game are, to some degree, linked with the context of the game
encounter. This alone is enough to indicate that the general goal-orientedness
of players cannot be assumed. Yet there is still further evidence in these survey
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 185

responses of players who engage in sub-optimal play for reasons that are not
connected with the social context.
A significant number of players indicate that they may abandon the goals
of the game when they perceive themselves as being in a position from which
they cannot win the game (16 percent). Still others describe situations where
a strategy of risk-aversion is more beneficial than a direct play for victory
(about 0.5 percent). For some the desire for personal retribution within the
context of a specific game is enough for some players to set aside the goals (3
percent). Some respondents attest to a tendency not to be overly concerned
with the prescribed goals of the game when they themselves are learning (8
percent), while others may use the play of a particular game as an opportunity
to experiment with new strategies (6 percent). Here the play of the game is
not situated as an isolated event, but as part of the ongoing practice of the
hobby. Finally, a number of players suggest that their interest in the goals of
the game is reduced in games they do not enjoy (3 percent) or in the play of
lighter games (6 percent) where the emphasis is explicitly on experience over
competition.6
As can be seen, players present a wide variety of reasons why they might
not actively seek victory in a game. However, the fact that players indicate
that there exist situations in which goal-orientation would not be their primary
concern does not imply that such behavior is common — for the most part,
players tend to play a game to win as prescribed by the rules. Indeed, in all
of the situations described here the question arises as to whether players are
actually “playing” the game if they are not actively pursuing the victory con-
ditions that are explicitly stated in the rules.
It is tempting here to call on the notion of the “active player” that Heide
Smith and Aarseth suggest is of such fascination to game scholars (Heide
Smith, 2006, p. 30; Aarseth, 2007). However, in my readings of how the
active player is perceived as being engaged in “wondrous acts of transgression”
(Aarseth, 2007, p. 133), engaging with the game “in ways not prescribed by
the designer” (Heide Smith, 2006, p. 24), I find little in common with the
rationale and behaviors that are described by respondents here. None of the
activities or motivations described above could be described as “transgressive”
in terms of any deliberate attempt to undermine the game design. Arguably,
then, these players do not conform to the model of the rational player or the
active player. This is, perhaps, due to the fact that both of these models are
largely concerned with the relationship between the player and the game sys-
tem. In eurogames the relationship between the social context and the game
is significant in shaping the motivations of players. The intersection of the
abstract ruleset with the social structures that surround the game constitutes
the act of gaming.
186 EUROGAMES

Although the term gaming has come to describe the act of game-playing
generally,7 in critical terms the word has a very specific meaning. Hughes
describes the activity of gaming as “the processes by which players mold and
modulate the raw materials of their games into actual play” (1999, p. 94). The
practices Hughes describes arise from the interpersonal interactions that occur
during the play of a given game:
Rules can be interpreted and reinterpreted toward preferred meanings and
purposes, selectively invoked or ignored, challenged or defended, changed or
enforced to suit the collective goals of different groups of players. In short,
players can take the same game and collectively make of it strikingly different
experiences [p. 94].8
Understanding the gaming encounter as a socially constituted series of
exchanges with other players as opposed to a rational series of prescribed inter-
actions situates player experience as paramount to understanding the game
form. Yet it does not necessarily imply anything transgressive or deviant in
the attitudes of players. Embedding play in the context of the social fabric
which surrounds it, the teaching, learning and implied social contract of the
game become a part of the play activity as much as games between idealized
optimizers. The contrived maintenance of the level playing field seems an
appropriately fluid response to the differing levels of expertise and social expec-
tations present in the encounter. Where voluntary handicapping is present it
not only restores the competitive equilibrium that players have come to expect
from pseudo-agônistic play but also reinforces the social cohesion that is of
such importance to players in the game encounter. This emphasis on the
social fabric of the game encounter is further challenged when players are
given the opportunity to adversely affect the position of opponents.

Rationalizing Antagonism
There is a fine line between trying to win and spoiling others’ enjoyment.—
R224

The notion that “winning at all costs” might be inappropriate in a par-

ticular social setting reflects the way in which the expectations of social behav-
ior influence the formal structure of the game. While the expectations of this
cooperative element brought to the table by each player may differ, it is evident
that players are generally informed by what, in the context of children’s play,
Borman and Lippincott term the “press to maintain the game” (1982, p. 139).
That is, the maintenance of the play environment in a way that benefits all
players may constitute a higher priority than the pursuit of the prescribed
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 187

game goals. Awareness of this issue is evident in responses that claim the social
connectedness between players is more important than the game-specified
goals:
I would not pursue victory if I believe I will hurt someone’s feelings by doing
so. I would not try and ruin another player’s chances at winning because I
have nothing more constructive to do [R206].
Most of the enjoyment in the games comes from seeing the game unfold, and
if all that is desired is victory, then it opens up to “three turn win or else”
strategies which are no fun.... Sure we trash talk and promises can be broken,
but there are levels of promise, and while it is ok to backstab now and again,
it’s not about winning at all costs [R579].
The idea that players are under an implicit obligation to fulfill social
responsibilities within the game is one that serves to shape the gaming
encounter in a number of ways. As I have indicated, some players are aware
that to pursue victory goals too zealously can threaten the stability of the
social setting. The question arises, then, of how players evaluate certain actions
as being inappropriate, where other actions are perfectly acceptable. While
in theory a player can be “rational,” in reality an awareness of the social context
is essential to the continuation of the game.
The option to deliberately hinder the play of others through direct or
indirect action is one area where the awareness of the social fabric is particularly
important. In traditional two-player abstract games, the zero-sum nature of
the contest demands that players seek to maximize their own position while
subverting their opponent — every move effectively hinders the other player.
Within multiplayer games, however, the decision to target another player may
be an entirely strategic one, but it is also one that runs the risk of being per-
ceived as motivated by factors other than the general goal-orientedness of
play. In this case, the choice to target another player is a critical one. The
interpretation of a player’s intent may disrupt the social fabric in ways not
intended by the antagonist.
While 64 percent of respondents perceive no problem with deliberately
hindering other players, a noteworthy number qualified their replies by
describing specific situations in which they felt such actions were a legitimate
tactic. In a number of responses to this question, this decision was framed in
particularly rational terms:
If there were four moves available, this is the order I would take them.
Benefits me and hinders an opponent. Benefits me. Hinders opponent.
Helps/hinders no one [R753].
Clearly this respondent has a highly organized and reasonable series of
priorities that inform the decision to hinder other players. This rationality is
188 EUROGAMES

also apparent in the comments of those who respond that they would only
target the game leader. This approach, colloquially referred to as “bashing the
leader,” prolongs the game for the other players, affording them opportunities
to win the game. Of those players who qualified the appropriateness of hin-
dering other players, 10 percent subscribe to this perspective:
I will attack a clear leader, but not always attack anyone else unless I have no
other option that might reasonably be considered an optimum move [R543].
If the endgame is near and there is one clear leader and I have no chance at
winning, I will hinder the leader to the detriment of my own position [R569].
In contrast, many players adopt a more nuanced approach that is depend-
ent upon the particular social situation and the perceived expectations of oth-
ers, rather than the game itself:
I am very conscious of whom I am seated with, and while I want to win, more
important to me is whether everyone had a good time. So I will evaluate the
players and decide whom I can hinder and have them still enjoy the game, as
well as who such tactics will rub wrong [R262].
I have to be sure that the other person can take the setback. I’d rather lose a
game than lose a friend [R316].
I try to “balance the meanness” around the table. I’ll endeavour to hinder dif-
ferent players at different times so as to avoid people feeling victimised and
their enjoyment being affected because of it [R704].
If you are a guest at someone’s house for a game night you don’t block their
route in Ticket to Ride [R591].
A number of respondents suggested that their decision to hinder another
player is dependent on the game being played, with a sizeable proportion of
these making some reference to the rules of the game and whether they explic-
itly allow and/or encourage this type of play (43 percent). This attitude is
also reflected in those respondents who made reference to “the spirit of the
game” or the understanding that such plays are acceptable only if they can be
construed as “sportsmanlike.”
Emerging from these responses is a clear picture of how the goal-
orientedness assumed by the rational player model is frequently undermined
in practice by the individual perspectives of players, understandings of appro-
priate forms of play and the need to balance the social world of the gaming
encounter with the competitive structure of the game. All of these elements
contradict the general assumption that players are rationally motivated agents
who always act in pursuit of the game goals. More importantly, perhaps, they
also throw into question the notion that enjoyment is derived from the attain-
ment of these goals.
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 189

The Tenuous Relationship Between

“Better” Outcomes and Enjoyment
It is quite simple: When you play a game, you want to win. Winning makes
you happy, losing makes you unhappy.— Juul, 2009

Heartbreaking losses and lucky last-minute wins are an important and valued
part of my gaming experience not because of the win or loss, but because of
the reactions of the participants. The playful belly-aching and playful gloating
following a game session often leads to laughter and hilarity afterwards. Pur-
suing victory is a means to this end, not an end in itself.— R643

The idea that players pursue goals and victorious outcomes as a principal
motivation for engagement with the game is a compelling and pervasive one,
particularly in writings on game design. For Juul, the enjoyment that can be
derived from a “better” outcome (i.e. victory) is one that underpins the psy-
chological state of playing a competitive game to the degree that he uses this
condition as a defining element of games (2005, p. 40). It is interesting to
note, however, that although Juul’s model is ostensibly a distillation of the
works of previous scholars, the suggestion that players are attached to one
outcome over another is not one that appears in any of the definitions from
which he draws his raw material. While the presence of a disequilibrial out-
come is included in the definition proposed by Avedon and Sutton Smith
(1971b, p. 405) and the quantifiable nature of that outcome is present in that
of Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p. 80), the idea that a player is attached in
some way to this outcome is a highly speculative one.
In terms of board game hobbyists, a favorite quotation on this subject
comes from designer Reiner Knizia: “When playing a game, the goal is to
win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning.” Although this
statement displays a certain idealism about the nature of competitive gameplay,
it reinforces the notion that many players are actively conscious of the separate
nature of game goals and the ensuing valorization of outcomes. This emphasis
upon process over outcome is explicitly mentioned by a number of survey
respondents:
Playing to win is critical.... Winning itself is wholly inconsequential. I’d much
prefer to come in last than to win unchallenged. Did everyone have fun?
Good, nothing else matters [R162].
Trying to win is important, having fun is important, actual winning is not
that important [R142].
It’s important that there be a goal. It’s not important whether I win as long as
I get to try to win [R174].
190 EUROGAMES

It [winning] is secondary to the enjoyment of the game and the enjoyment of

being and playing with the people there [R206].
This last response brings our attention back to one of the defining elements
of games — enjoyment. Although enjoyment is an extremely slippery term to
define, psychologist Fabio Paglieri has suggested that it can be seen as a char-
acteristic goal in all play activities (2003a; 2003b). Given the wide variety of
reasons identified for why players may abandon the goals that lead to a val-
orized outcome, a significant question is that of how much importance players
place upon the outcome of a game. If Juul is correct and emotional attachment
to a “better” outcome is a feature of games, we would expect that winning
would contribute to player enjoyment of a game. Thus, as a part of my survey
players were asked to what degree a successful outcome contributes to their
enjoyment.
The first and most significant observation that arises from responses to
this question is that over half of players (53 percent) are not attached to the
outcome of the game as a basis for their enjoyment. While 28 percent acknowl-
edge that winning contributes positively to the experience of a game, only 19
percent indicated that this was an important element in their enjoyment of
the game encounter. These results stand in stark contrast to Juul’s assertion
that “the spoilsport is one who refuses to seek enjoyment in winning, or refuses
to become unhappy by losing” (2005, p. 40). Of the players who gave more
detailed qualitative responses to this question, 36 percent suggested that their
own enjoyment of the game was of more importance than a victorious outcome,
while 15 percent indicated that the enjoyment of all players held more weight
in determining whether the game was a success. Clearly players have differing
understandings of the relative importance of game outcomes. This observation
raises further questions regarding the relationship between enjoyment and
player goals within the gaming encounter.

Enjoyment as a Goal
Paglieri builds upon the work of cognitive psychologists Rosario Conte
and Cristiano Castelfranchi, who propose a model of cognition that focuses
on mental states based upon beliefs and goals (1995). Taking as a fundamental
characteristic of play the fact that players seek to enjoy the activity, Paglieri
uses this model to describe the way that different goal-types shape the expe-
rience of, and attitude towards, play (2003a). Although he discusses a number
of these goal-types and the way they shape play activities, I will limit the dis-
cussion here to the two forms that are most relevant to this survey — those
Paglieri describes as the “true player” and the “hedonistic player.”9
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 191

The true player is described by Paglieri as one for whom enjoyment is

the motivation for play: “The player is playing to have fun and any other goal
is a sub-goal for enjoyment, so she presents a strong goal-oriented attitude.”
There is a clear causal relationship here — the player is engaged in play specifi-
cally because they find such play enjoyable; and since they have identified the
game experience as one that provides this enjoyment, they are understood to
be largely goal-oriented inasmuch as playing by the prescribed rules and goals
is perceived as the source of pleasure. Thus, the player demonstrates an attach-
ment to the goals and outcome of the game, since their enjoyment is based
upon the goals as defined by the rules. As a consequence, this “also means
they can end without a single bit of enjoyment, if they miss their goals”
(2003b). There is a clear correlation here between Paglieri’s true player and
the rational player model, since both are strongly goal-oriented in their play
of a game.
A second category of goal-type presented by Paglieri is that of the meta-
goal. The player for whom enjoyment is a meta-goal is described as the hedo-
nistic player:
Such players are always fun-driven, but they can be poorly goal-oriented: they
have no problem in forsaking goals defined by play rules, whenever doing so
could assure them to have more fun. I suggest to characterize them as hedo-
nistic, since they always choose the path of greater enjoyment [2003a].
The presence of the hedonistic player is also suggested by this research.
Player responses which focus upon overall pleasure as being a higher priority
than the goals defined by the rules clearly indicate a predisposition towards
this style of play. In terms of exhibited play styles, objectively determining
the differences between the hedonistic player and the true player might prove
difficult since one need not expect their behaviors to deviate too strongly.
The difference between the two is largely one of attitude and disposition dur-
ing play that sees the hedonistic player willing to abandon the prescribed goals
if they conflict with the pursuit of enjoyment. Responses that suggest this
approach were certainly present in this survey, albeit nowhere nearly as com-
mon as those that suggested the true player.
As a consequence of the unbridled pursuit of enjoyment, the hedonistic
player will presumably have no difficulty with the idea of self-handicapping
if it results in a game that is more enjoyable. Certainly this would appear to
be the case when players self-handicap in order to achieve an equilibrium that
furthers their own enjoyment. Similarly, although based upon longer-term
expectations, the decision to self-handicap in order to draw inexperienced
players into the game suggests a hedonistic approach that hinges on the idea
of exchange as an impetus for social action (Homans, 1958). That is, if the
experienced player self-handicaps in this particular play, the potential for
192 EUROGAMES

drawing the inexperienced player back to the game provides rewards that out-
weigh the shorter-term prioritization of game goals.
The use of Paglieri’s model is productive here firstly in the way it describes
why players focus on game goals. When the primary motivation for play is
the enjoyment derived from the activity, any deviance from the prescribed
form of the play activity will result in a lesser experience — the rules and goals
of the game are central to a player’s enjoyment. Secondly, this model also
explains why some players willingly abandon the game goals in particular sit-
uations. Players for whom enjoyment is a meta-goal of the play activity will
behave in ways that are not prescribed by the rules in order to further their
enjoyment of the play experience. Both of these characteristic approaches to
play are evident in the survey responses discussed in this chapter.

The Social Player

As I have identified, the apparent tensions between the competitive and
collaborative demands of social play are managed through both communica-
tive and behavioral acts in the form of proffered assistance and self-
handicapping. The pursuit of the over-arching goal, while ostensibly a primary
motivation within the play encounter, is understood by many players to be
a facilitative rather than prescriptive element of the game. The general goal-
orientedness of players can be subverted by the desire to maintain social cohe-
sion for the group and pleasure for the individual. Thus it is clear that players,
for the most part, are aware of the distinction between the game goal as
described by the formal structure of the game and the valorization of outcome
that is derived from the social context. To return to Eggert’s opening quote,
the game goals of eurogames are of more importance as a device for motivating
play than as a valorizing end condition.
The knowledge that player motivations are, in part, shaped by social
context highlights an important element in this analysis of play — that is, that
the shape and experience of a specific game encounter are highly dependent
upon the particular social structure of the game encounter, and the attitudes
and expectations of players. In understanding that these elements can have
such an impact on issues such as goal-orientedness, there is a clear indication
that, as Goffman suggests, the boundary between the game world and the real
world can be more accurately imagined as a “membrane” that permits the
incursion of one into the other (1961, p. 65). All of the behaviors described
here as deviating from the model of the rational player are evidence of this
osmotic intrusion. To suggest that a social game can be played without any
influence from the social context is to deny the fact that these games are social
 8. Goals and Outcomes in Social Play 193

experiences. The implicit rules engendered by the social gathering that sur-
rounds the play of the game serve to shape the game encounter as much as
do the explicit rules to be found within the game itself. In the next chapter
I turn my attention to how this process can not only influence the play of the
game, but also render the game experience largely dependent upon the norms
of the gaming encounter.
 9

An Act Apart?

Obviously, we are never merely playing a game. Or, to say it another way,
we are never playing only one game. We are always conscious of the game’s
relation to the world in which we live, the world in which that game is one
small part.— Sniderman, 1999

So far I have described the way that players negotiate two different imper-
atives: first, the competitiveness of play that is called upon by the structure of
a game, and, second, the sociability that provides the principal source of enjoy-
ment in game play. I concluded that the majority of players do not consider
winning — the ostensibly “better” outcome — a significant element in their
enjoyment. It seems players are, for the most part, willing to abandon the
prescribed goals of the game in order to maintain the social cohesion of the
game encounter, particularly by reclaiming a sense of “fair play.”
To further explore the influence of the social context of the gaming
encounter on the play of board games the player survey included a number
of questions related to in-game activities, such as cheating, kibitzing, decep-
tion and kingmaking. Responses to these questions reveal the importance that
players place on maintaining the separation of the game world from the “real
world.” Interestingly, differing player expectations and understandings of
appropriate forms of play suggest that the explicit rules of a game act primarily
as a framework around which the actual play of a game is constructed.

Cheating
If you cheat, we are done playing.— R179

Cheating in the context of multiplayer games is the act of purposefully

deceiving other players in acting outside of the explicit rules of game play in

194
 9. An Act Apart? 195

order to gain advantage in a game. In the play of board games, the implicit
requirement to play by the rules demands a sense of mutual trust between
players, even as the sense of competition embedded in the game structure
compels them to pursue the game goals. Unlike digital games, where the pro-
cedural rules are embedded in the algorithms of the game itself, or organized
sports, where the presence of an impartial umpire ensures compliance, board
games require that players voluntarily agree to be bound by the arbitrary con-
straints of the game system in order for the game to function. Reflecting this
requirement, 94 percent of respondents expressed a deep displeasure at the
thought of engaging in such an activity, or playing games with those who
did.
A common reaction to cheating was an insistence that such players would
be ejected from game play and would not be entertained as participants in
the future (25 percent). Respondents also placed particular emphasis on the
notion of mutual trust and the understanding that cheating not only under-
mines the game structure but also detracts from the enjoyment of other players.
Some respondents felt that cheating within the context of a social gaming
environment constituted a “pathological act” (R95) suggesting “a severe social
disorder” (R56). Some of the more emotive responses to this question
included:
Not only will you never be invited over again, but the person who first invited
you along gets thrown in the pool [R239].
People who cheat who are over 12 should be shot [R215].
Burn them at the stake [R184].
Cheaters? Stone ’em [R85].
Testicular removal is too mild a punishment for cheating [R117].
Do you mean: Do I send flowers and cards to the surviving members of the
cheater’s family? And I would say no. I would also not attend the funeral serv-
ice [R444].
These responses typify the prevalent attitude among hobbyists towards
cheating in board games. Interestingly, Mia Consalvo has explored the act of
cheating in video games, suggesting that while video game players may have
varying ideas as to what constitutes cheating in a game environment, to many,
“shortcuts or code alterations are acceptable in the space of the game” because
“games offer us a space where we can experience that freedom, without sig-
nificant consequences” (2005b). In the light of her research, Consalvo suggests
that cheating is “a way for individuals to keep playing through boredom,
through difficulty, through limited scenarios, and through rough patches or
just bad games” (2005a).
196 EUROGAMES

However, as Kafai and Fields note, the majority of research on cheating

behaviors in games is principally concerned with the consequences for the
game rather than for rival players (2007). Importantly, the act of cheating in
board and table games is differentiated from that in single player video games
due to the way that the required duplicity can impact on other players. Because
cheating in a multiplayer games involves the act of intentional deception —
“the conscious, planned intrusion of an illusion seeking to alter a target’s per-
ception of reality, replacing objective reality with perceived reality” (Bell,
2003, p. 244)— it threatens to disrupt the social cohesion of the gaming
encounter as well as the integrity of the game. The repeated assertion that
players caught cheating will experience a social penalty appears to leave little
room for exploring the creative potential of rule-breaking within the play of
board games. In order for the social formation of the game encounter to
remain intact, the implicit understanding that such deception is prohibited
within the confines of the game holds significant weight.
Another observation made by players is that cheating in board games is
evidence of the privileging of outcome over process:
Cheating is for people who would be happy to simply record victories with no
regard for the actual game progress [R723].
The important part of the game is the PROCESS of playing the game, not the
outcome. Intentionally violating rules is counterproductive [R582].
This tends to arise with people who are too wrapped up in winning and not
in the experience of play [R161].
Cheaters don’t like gaming [they] just like winning [R203].
As discussed in the previous chapter, most players view an overly strong attach-
ment to the outcome of the game to be inappropriate. Whereas goals are perceived
as facilitative of the gaming process, attachment to outcome is derived from fac-
tors extrinsic to the game itself. That is to say, that while pursuit of the game
goals is a requirement of play, the extent of the attachment to the game outcome
is a trait of the player. In its most extreme manifestation this attachment can
lead to cheating. If the desire for valorization through winning is prioritized
over the play of the game itself, then real-world attachments disrupt the play of
the game. This concern is reflected in a number of other issues that, while not
as disruptive as cheating, can impact in different ways on the play experience.

An Act Apart
As a part of the survey, players were asked to identify behaviors that were
considered unacceptable within the context of play. Setting aside the significant
 9. An Act Apart? 197

number of respondents who again expressed their disapproval of cheating,

the most common concerns were those that reflected the inability of some
players to separate the “real world’ from the artifice of the game. Examples of
this kind of issue include the taking of loss and aggressive acts personally,
complaining about the game situation, personal attacks, collusion, gloating
and emotional manipulation.1 The most common concern among respondents
was over behaviors that suggest a player is genuinely unhappy about in-game
activities. Becoming upset over a loss or an aggressive move on behalf of
another player is viewed as manipulative, as well as disruptive. Once again,
the suggestion here is that such behaviors indicate an overly strong attachment
to outcome and an inability to separate the artificiality of the game play from
the perceived valorization that is derived from winning:
Getting genuinely angry is just stupid. I don’t mind even the shadiest of tac-
tics, but I do get annoyed at people that take things too seriously and gripe
when things aren’t going their way or blame bad luck for everything. It’s just a
game, if you can’t lose and still have fun, don’t play [R221].
I do not like players who take losses so personally that they would openly
intimidate and threaten another player into a course of action which was
counter-productive [R494].
Somebody saying “Oh no!” playfully is alright, but somebody sulking when
you interrupted their plan, played in their carefully calculated spot, leading to
a sour game experience for everybody else is not cool. It might be because I’m
not deadset on winning, but I find sore losing as well as sulking in game to be
unacceptable behaviour, and often sours a particular game for me [R288].
Not surprisingly, a number of respondents also considered personal
attacks, gloating and taunting as evidence that players are inappropriately
allowing real-world emotions to affect in-game behavior. This lack of sepa-
ration between the game and the wider environment is considered particularly
inappropriate in instances where grievances or allegiances from the real world
spill into the play context:
There are ... situations where a metagame effect is present — i.e. one player is
deliberately making another player’s life miserable, not to advance their own
situation but because they have a personal grudge against them. These games
are usually uncomfortable to be involved in and often devolve into arguments.
It’s best not to get involved in such games [R196].
Apart from ... cheating and kingmaking, the only other thing I would find
really unacceptable is in the meta-game merging of internal and external (with
respect to the game being played) activities — e.g. using real-world threats,
promises or personal relationships to leverage in-game decisions [R477].
Not acceptable to ally with your girlfriend/boyfriend just cause they’re your
GF/BF, or to not attack someone ’cause they gave you chocolate [R364].
198 EUROGAMES

Hobbyists often refer to this inappropriate intrusion of real-world attachments

into the game as metagaming, even though, as I shall discuss a little later,
metagame play can take a number of less detrimental forms. Regardless,
whether in the form of collusion or in the decision to target another player
based upon considerations external to the game, this type of play is typically
considered unacceptable.
These responses reflect the understanding that play of a game should
ideally be, as Huizinga suggests, “an act apart” from the real world (1950, p.
10). Discussing the conditions surrounding play, Fabio Paglieri proposes that
within games, a normative meta-rule exists:
Within temporal and spatial boundaries of play context, a (meta)rule holds:
there must be no practical consequences to the actions performed here, after
the play is over. But this rule has a relevant corollary: if a play action has no
practical consequences outside play context, then it is permitted while play-
ing — no matter what are its nature and moral value elsewhere [2003a].
Here Paglieri affirms the deontic nature of play in that players are assumed to
voluntarily uphold this shared meta-rule as one that constrains them during
play. The spatial and temporal boundaries commonly assigned to the play of
games circumscribe the activity while also creating a context in which players
share a set of normative constraints. The context brought about by this nor-
mative boundary can be termed “play” so long as there are no consequences
external to it. More importantly perhaps, it is understood that in-game actions
should have no consequence outside of the game. Players who fail to recognize
this meta-rule can disrupt the play experience. As one player describes:
Going into a game, I suspend the traditional ethical rules and make it clear to
others that I do not regard the in-game situations as truly moral in nature
[R548].
The observation here that the game world ideally needs to be understood
as separate from the real is complicated by the findings of the previous chapter.
As I have argued, the act of self-handicapping is commonly motivated by fac-
tors external to the game itself. When players respond to these factors in mak-
ing a decision not to play aggressively or target another player, real world
considerations function to maintain the social fabric. This is clearly a delicate
balance, since players whose behavior actively demonstrates real-world attach-
ment to the outcome can be considered problematic by other players.
The fact that board games are played within a social context makes it
extremely difficult to separate the ideal experience of the “act apart” from the
communicative exchanges between players. As one player observes, “Some
whining is strategic. Excessive whining ruins the experience” (R413). Although
this player perceives genuine complaint as irksome, there is an indication that,
 9. An Act Apart? 199

in some cases, communicative acts aside from the in-game mechanics can play
a part in shaping the flow of play. Indeed, while for some players complaining
about an in-game situation is problematic, for others it constitutes an expected
part of the gaming encounter:
We also consider it fair, almost expected, to belly-ache about how poorly
you’re doing. Even if you’re doing quite well. And whining about how poorly
you’re doing to get out of having someone do something bad to you is also
perfectly acceptable — as long as you accept it with grace and/or humor if you
get the bad stuff anyway [R232].
For this player, it is clear that the subtle manipulation of other players
through communicative acts is not merely a side-effect of play, but another
layer of interaction that forms a fundamental aspect of social game play. This
type of play, also referred to as metagaming, is interpreted and experienced
by players in different ways.

Playing the Metagame

As much as people make noises about being smart and stuff, the best gamers
I’ve ever played against are usually the ones that can control the game above
the game: the metagame.— Solko, 2005

If you don’t like the metagame, play games against a computer.— Pollard,
2008

Within the context of games as a leisure pursuit, the term metagame has
been used in a variety of ways, most of which are summarized in Richard
Garfield’s description of the phenomena. Garfield refers to the metagame as
“how a game interfaces outside of itself,” suggesting four ways that the
metagame impacts play of a given game: what players bring to a game, what
players take from a game, what players do between games, and what players
do during games (2000, p. 16). In terms of the board gaming hobby, all of
these elements can be seen to have some degree of impact on the play of a
given board game.
Players may bring previous experience of a game or similar games to the
encounter. The description offered by Garfield is so broad that one could sug-
gest that any prior play experience can be considered a part of the metagame.
As discussed earlier, in cases where particular social relations are manifest on
the gaming table in the form of grudges and/or collusion, this type of influence
is viewed in a very negative light by most gamers. Similarly, outside of the
framework of tournaments that have metagame value in terms of how they
affect overall position, it is expected that play occurs in isolation and that pre-
200 EUROGAMES

vious victories will not be factored into the play of a particular game. Ideally,
players do not bring social relations to the table, nor do they allow those real-
world relationships to be affected by play of a game. In terms of what occurs
between plays, the earlier discussion of hobby gaming culture is replete with
evidence of the way that players engage in metagame activities. Indeed,
Garfield suggests that what separates hobby games from other forms of game
is the compelling form of metagame that is offered by involvement with the
hobby (2000, p. 16).
I want to focus here on the last of the forms that Garfield describes, the
metagaming that occurs during the play of the game. In doing so, I specifically
want to address the social interactions that occur within the game that are
perceived by some players as significant in their enjoyment of social play and
by others as problematic. This type of metagame activity is clearly described
by Csilla Weninger in her analysis of social events in the collectible card game
Magic: The Gathering:
The metagame is characterized by language use that topically centers around
game analysis: the out-loud deliberation about the co-participant’s or one’s
own moves. It also includes talk about hypothetical courses of action, prima-
rily in the form of players reflecting about what the outcomes of an alternative
move might have been [2006, p. 64].
As Weninger implies, it is a natural consequence of social gaming encounters
that players engage in conversations that pertain to the play of the game. This
interaction is where much of the meaning of the game encounter is produced.
Indeed, drawing on the work of Brian Sutton Smith, Boria et al. note that
the meaning of the video game Counter Strike is not only found in the graph-
ical and mechanical elements which reside in the game itself but “in the social
mediations that go on between players through their talk with each other”
(2002). In face-to-face games this social interaction is often referred to as
“table-talk,” a name inherited from partner discussions in card games.
Although frowned upon in more competitive environments, and specifically
forbidden in select games, table-talk in a typical social gaming situation is
common. The presence of table-talk is complicated, however, when the con-
versations that take place over and above the gaming table are specifically
employed in ways that are intended to shape the outcome of the game. The
term commonly used to describe this activity is kibitzing.

Kibitzing and Deception

Although the kibitzer is traditionally thought of as a non-player of the
game who contributes (usually unwanted) advice, the term has come to refer
 9. An Act Apart? 201

to any player who offers commentary on a player’s move or the game situation
generally. Wei-Hwa Huang suggests four motivations for the kibitzer — those
of instruction, selfishness, altruism and socializing (Vasel et al., 2006). As
Huang notes, it is extremely difficult to discern the motivations of a particular
comment, an observation that frequently leads to the interpretation of kib-
itzing as a manipulative element in the metagame. For some players, table-
talk and kibitzing can be problematic:
Table-talk gets me mad sometimes. If someone sees something that another
player may not and suggests it as an option.... I’d be fine when maybe teach-
ing the game and giving hints to new players, but I do get a bit mad when
experienced players give other experienced players “suggestions”— especially
when they affect my chances of winning [R585].
(Unacceptable behaviors) ... strategizing openly with another player against a
third party (“table-talk”). I specifically don’t like this if the move by a third
player helps the one giving advice, to my detriment. Often if a new player is
making a gross mistake someone may ask the table, “May I give some advice?”
Then the group can either agree or not. Without permission to give strategy
tips, especially from the one who will be harmed, it is unacceptable to give
advice [R308].
For these players, kibitzing disrupts the expectations of autonomy of in-game
decision-making. Yet for others this communicative element is fundamental
to the play of the game:
My group meta-games like crazy. As long as people aren’t annoying when they
do it. We have a good time giving each other “advice” during our games
[R463].
Kibitzing is an integral part of the experience of boardgaming, and is one of
the big reasons I find playing games on the computer unrewarding compared
to face to face play. Bridge is one of the few gaming experiences that specifi-
cally excludes kibitzing; all others nearly require it or the game suffers [Young
in Vasel et al., 2006].
As these comments indicate, players have different expectations regarding
the permissibility of table-talk and kibitzing at the gaming table. Proffering
advice that is intended to benefit the advice-giver rather than the receiver can
have a significant effect on the state of the game. It also represents a disruption
of the autonomy that some players expect from the game experience in the
way that the game shifts from one of independent decision-making to one
where decisions are subject to the influence of in-game communication.
Clearly the social context impinges on the purity of the game world.
In contrast to this position, consider the following player statement:
I might make suggestions as to what my possible strategies could be during a
game, remaining silent about the one I’m REALLY trying to pursue, as to mis-
202 EUROGAMES

lead others. I think this is perfectly acceptable (especially in multiplayer

conflict games), and part of the game is not letting yourself getting manipu-
lated by others and seeing through their misleading would-be intentions. All
in good laughs and humour though, people should separate game and real life
[R351].

This player makes a clear distinction between the game world and the real
world, yet clearly included in the understanding of the game world is a
form of social manipulation that for other players is problematic. Evidently,
some players include in their understandings of game play the banter and
kibitzing that often occurs around the table, while for others the game is
purely an opportunity to match wits, ideally devoid of any manipulative or
persuasive kibitzing. This variability is further highlighted in survey responses
to the question of whether misleading opponents is a legitimate strategy in
games.
In the context of game-related conversation, 57 percent of players sur-
veyed consider deception an inherent part of effective game play, particularly
with regards to player intent. A number of players indicated that this was a
necessary part of game play:
Statements regarding intent should never be taken at face value, as telegraph-
ing your moves transparently is obviously not a winning strategy. In many
abstract games, intent is the only aspect of play that is hidden, and this
requires either complete silence regarding the game or misdirection to achieve
your goals [R161].
Respondents who indicated that this type of play was acceptable typically
referred to bluffing, feinting, distraction and misdirection as tactics that reflect
a degree of gamesmanship. Although perhaps not explicitly encompassed by
the ruleset, it seems they are implicitly a part of the broader gaming encounter
and are often seen as valuable skills:
As long as you don’t lie about the rules or how the game should be played, it
is fine. I respect people that can fool others about their intentions really well
[R140].
Manipulation is a valued asset of life’s tools [R343].
Deception is an important part of gaming. If players take your word so much
that they fail to see that you are working contrary to it, then so be it. They
had their chance. In-game deceptions such as these are different than cheat-
ing, in my opinion [R179].
In contrast to this attitude were the 3 percent of respondents who felt
that misleading other players was entirely inappropriate:
I think it is a way for someone to try to compensate for bad play by sub-
terfuge [R529].
 9. An Act Apart? 203

It’s not “cheating,” but I hate people who do that. I tend to just not listen to
what people say, and say nothing myself [R538].
Because I see gaming as a social event, I strongly disprove of lying about your
intentions during a game. The point of gaming is to strengthen friendships,
relationships, etc. [R245].
Of the 38 percent of players who qualified their responses to this ques-
tion, 88 percent indicated that the decision to mislead other players was
dependent upon the game being played. Most of these players indicated that
such misdirection must be explicitly encouraged within the rules of the game,
typically where they involve mechanics of diplomacy or negotiation:
This depends totally on the kind of game and whether it could be considered
within the bounds of the rules. In most games the rules are quite clear about
whether bluff is allowed or not. For the vast majority of games involving mul-
tiple players it is quite clear to me that misleading others about your inten-
tions is a viable strategy [R340].
In games where trading, negotiating and other verbal skills are clearly part of
the game strategy, then I have no issue with it at all. For other games —Puerto
Rico, for example — where bargaining between players would ruin the game
balance in short order, then you shouldn’t be talking about your in-game
intentions at all, let alone lying about them [R456].
Notably, 10 percent of those who offered conditional responses indicated
that the decision to employ such tactics would be dependent upon the other
players in the group. Understandably, reference was occasionally made to the
inappropriateness of misdirection when teaching or when playing with
younger players. Many respondents made reference to the degree of familiarity
with the other players, citing explicit discussions or implicit understandings
that dictate the degree to which such metagaming is allowed and/or appro-
priate:
A lot of this relates to the fact that I play with a regular group, and we’ve
learned about each other’s general psychological approaches, and can therefore
make sensible decisions about claims that other players may make [R587].
If I wanted to play that way, I would discuss it with my group first and make
sure everyone’s on the same page. There are lots of different styles of gaming
interaction that can all work, as long as all the parties involved agree on that
style of play [R355].
The context dependence and the variability of player attitudes towards
this type of play style suggests that players are often involved in gaming
encounters where differing implicit rulesets might be experienced by each
player. Clearly, then, groups who play together over a period of time form
shared understandings concerning the level of metagame play, suggesting that
204 EUROGAMES

although two groups might share a set of explicit rules in the form of the
game itself, the social metagame in each situation, and hence the game being
played, may differ considerably.
One way to highlight the differing understandings of the metagame in
relation to the overall experience of play is to analyze situations where players
are forced into making decisions that might be influenced by the particular
context of play. One such situation is referred to within the hobby as “king-
making.”

Kingmaking
If you’re not in a position to win outright, than you deserve to fall prey to the
metagame.— R665

Kingmaking in the context of gaming refers to an endgame situation in

multiplayer games where one player, who is not in a position to win, has the
opportunity to decide through their actions who will. The act of kingmaking
is one that is discussed frequently on boardgamegeek, largely due to the way
that different players perceive the “right thing to do” in such a situation.
Knowing the contentious nature of this issue, I included in my survey a ques-
tion as to how players feel about kingmaking situations. The responses, by
and large, reflect very different understandings of how games should be played
and the role of the metagame.
The open-ended format of this question led to a variety of reactions.
The most common theme running throughout these responses was the
inevitability of kingmaking situations in multiplayer games. A number of
respondents (7.5 percent) were of the opinion that the potential for kingmak-
ing in a game is evidence of flawed design. However, the most striking obser-
vation is the degree to which players differ in their attitudes towards this type
of play. 30 percent of respondents felt that kingmaking has a negative impact
on games and is often problematic when it occurs. Typically, these responses
focused on the arbitrary nature of one player having control over the overall
outcome of the game:
That sort of situation is no fun for anyone. Being handed the win, rather than
earning it, is a pointless and anticlimactic end to a game [R688].
I find it downright rude to those that had good strategies and were vying for
the win. I find it ruins a perfectly good gaming session by trivializing the
endgame [R710].
It has a serious negative effect on enjoyment of the game. Usually it’s a fault in
the game or a player who has ceased to care making a poor play [R580].
 9. An Act Apart? 205

A cheap, poorly designed way to make the losers feel like they have more to
give the game [R552].
In contrast to these responses were the almost identically sized group of
players who felt that kingmaking is an inherent part of any multiplayer game
and should be factored into play:
Kingmaking is an essential part of gameplay. The psychology and how you
manipulate your opponents is just as important as moving pieces around the
board. I always try to make sure it works in my favour if the last player can
have an influence on who wins [R195].
It is a necessary mechanic that forces players to make political decisions
throughout the game. Without kingmaking a player’s actions have no
metagame consequences. In other words, good and necessary [R344].
The metagame is always part of the game. If the kingmaker hands your oppo-
nent the win, then you obviously did not play the metagame as well as they
did [R133].
If your opponents have allowed you to get into a position late in the game
where you have the opportunity to decide the winner, more power to you! Let
the metagame begin! [R95].
These respondents view kingmaking as a part of the psychological skillset
required to play the game. To them, the ability to read a player and tune play
around that reading is an inherent part of the game. Importantly, many of
the responses were accompanied by a qualification that the decision to elevate
the position of another player should not be motivated by factors external to
the game:
As long as the player deciding does so based on what has happened in the
course of the game, I have no problem with it. If, however, the deciding
player has motives outside the game (such as making their significant other
win), I do have a problem with that and will let them know before any such
decision could be made [R443].
Kingmaking is fine if done within the context of the game (e.g., where it
improves your own final result or where it benefits the player who didn’t
attack you), as these are things which are part of the game (or metagame)
which can be controlled. However, I dislike it where it is done through factors
outside the game (e.g., holding grudges or favouring relationships), as it takes
away the level playing field [R468].
Here again it is clear that players enforce the separation of the game
world from the broader social context. The performance of the “act apart” is
seen as vital to the integrity of the game. Yet players have differing under-
standings of the way that actions performed within a game should be under-
stood. For some, it is appropriate for in-game actions to have consequences
206 EUROGAMES

that remain in the game. For others, in-game actions should not be treated
in the same way as those in the real world. For these players, taking into
account prior actions in the game constitutes inappropriate play. This is seen
most obviously in responses that emphasized a detached rationality should
kingmaking situations arise:
I think they should do the move that is most beneficial to their own position,
and whomever that benefits profits from their planning for that scenario
[R395].
I will make the move which increases my relative position the most. If there is
no such move, then I will “pass” if possible, or make an irrelevant move
[R365].

If you’re at the bottom of the pack you should generally just stick with moves
that seem “reasonable” for your position and hit the folks at the top roughly
equally [R281].
The most important thing for me is to make the decision as impersonal as
possible [R445].

These players choose not to allow prior actions to affect their decision-
making. Instead they are viewing themselves in isolation from other players.
One can discern two general approaches to play here. On the one hand there
are those players who view the interpersonal psychology of competitive play
as being a central element in their understanding of games. For these players
the potential ramifications of targeting other players are a consideration in
their overall approach to play. On the other hand, there is that group of players
who see games from a more abstract and rational perspective. For these players
the emphasis on skilful manipulation of the game system, rather than the psy-
chological interplay, is the principal concern. Is it the case, then, that some
players choose to play the metagame, while others do not?

Never Not Playing

A game without a metagame is like an idealized object in physics. It may be
a useful construct but it doesn’t really exist.— Garfield, 2000

When a group of players sit down around a table to play a game, the
social metagame begins. The very act of sitting together to engage in com-
petitive play establishes a framework for social interaction that can never be
entirely separated from the play of the game itself. If we sit with children or
inexperienced players, this metagame may manifest in self-handicapping.
 9. An Act Apart? 207

With more experienced players we may manipulate, kibitz and plead in ways
that bring the game to life. Alternatively, we may sit in silence and imagine
that this game-above-the-game is not occurring. Nevertheless, as
boardgamegeek member Mscrivner describes, this does nothing to alter the
situation:
Denying the metagame, or refusing to engage in metagaming is in and of
itself a metagame move. One’s emotional or attitudinal preferences may be to
ignore the metagame in favor of the less complex and chaotic (or, if you pre-
fer, the more mathematically harmonious) patterns of the board game, but
that does not mean the metagame ceases to be [2008].
Games such as the ones I have described here take place within a social
microcosm that cannot help but influence the flow of a particular game. Some
players are content to merely observe this metagame. Others seek to harness
it and attempt to shape it through the manipulation of others. As Pulsipher
describes:
[Players] play to enjoy the interaction of the system and the players, to learn
how people think and how they can be persuaded to think in certain ways
[2009b].
The appreciation of how people think and the development of skills to shape
that thinking are at the heart of social board game play. It is this element of
play that players describe when they refer to reading other players, predicting
behavior, and manipulating players through kibitzing, deception, and even
“tactical whining.” It is a game that players of board games are never not
playing.
Where difficulties arise is when players have conflicting ideas as to what
constitutes psychological play and what constitutes unfair leverage of the social
metagame. This is because game rules do not typically describe the psycho-
logical skills required to play. A good example of this is the card game Poker.
Despite the centrality of the bluff to the effective play of the game, there is
no reference to bluffing in the official rules of Poker (Ciaffone, 2004). While
this may seem a trivial observation, it might serve to imagine a group of
players who have no experience of the game. To these players, the potential
for bluffing is not immediately obvious. The game proceeds with players
attempting to estimate the worth of their cards based upon probabilities. Yet
Poker is a game predicated on the possibility of bluffing. Should this type of
play emerge, it would be subject to the social norms established by the group.
In fact, it is entirely possible that the act of bluffing may be dismissed as
“against the spirit of the game.”
Though the patterns of board games may appear complex, they are crude
and predictable when compared with the patterns of behaviors exhibited by
208 EUROGAMES

players. For some players it may be the mastery of game patterns that holds
their attention, where for others it may be the mastery of other players through
observation and psychological play. This research has identified that both
social interaction and intellectual stimulation are the most significant con-
tributors to player enjoyment of eurogames. Significantly, the framework for
intellectual stimulation is explicitly described by the rules of the game. The
framework for psychological play is not.
The fact that the implicit rules governing psychological play are never
codified means that players bring their own expectations to the game. In order
for the game to progress smoothly, these expectations must be managed within
the broader framework of the gaming encounter. It is the structure that
emerges from this process of negotiation that forms the game, as the nature
of each game is largely dependent on the social context in which it occurs. As
Garfield observes, “a particular game, played with the exact same rules will
mean different things to different people” (2000, p. 16).

The Social Construction of the Game

Any game requires a gaming society, and any society has norms and hierarchies
that interpenetrate the game. Talking about the game independently of the
life of the group playing it is an abstraction.— Sutton-Smith, 1997, p. 106

A board game is not a vacuum; it happens in real life with real people.—
R259

Players have their own understandings of the normative constraints that

are in play during a game. For the most part they work together to create the
game world and enforce its separation from the social context. Importantly,
the continued observation and maintenance of the “real’ social context is nec-
essarily a requirement of play. Any behavior that has the potential to spill
over outside of the play context can threaten the fragility of the play envi-
ronment. For this reason a significant degree of social awareness and self-
regulation is typically required to maintain the play of a game. As Matthew
Speier observes in the play of children, social play demands a high degree of
competence in terms of situated interaction and the ability to function within
an intimate social grouping (1976).
Stephen Sniderman has written on the implicit rules which surround
gameplay and which facilitate the perpetuation of the game instance, yet
which are not formally codified (1999). The suggestion that an unspoken obli-
gation binds the player to a normative performance within a game is not a
new one and is reflected in many discussions of the nature of play. In his
 9. An Act Apart? 209

observations of children, Lev Vygotsky notes that at a certain period in their

development children acquire the understanding that subjugation to internal
impulses during social play often results in the maximization of pleasure (1976,
p. 549), a theme that also runs through the work of Bernard Suits (1978).
Although some writers see this kind of self-regulation in all forms of play,
Fabio Paglieri identifies the “crucial element” in the identification of rules as
being a sense of social obligation that is established through peer-to-peer
negotiation (2005).
As I have identified here, players have many diverse expectations as to
the appropriate “way” to play particular games, in particular with regard to
the way that the social interaction forms a part of the game itself. While the
majority of players agree that social interaction is one of the main reasons for
playing, they have a variety of understandings as to what form this interaction
should take. From this observation it becomes clear why so many players tend
to form into regular groups that meet specifically with the intention of playing
games. As players become more familiar with the patterns of communication
that exist in established gaming groups, the potential for consequences to spill
outside of the game context diminishes. At the same time, the opportunity
to play with these social structures as a part of the game increases. When an
outsider joins a group, the existing social structure must again be recalibrated
to allow for the expectations of the new player.
Clearly the act of gaming is far more complex in terms of situated action
and social negotiation than can be accounted for by formalist explanations.
The play of the social game brings into being a complex web of interpersonal
and metacommunicative actions and behaviors that demand the constant
attention of the players, even as they strive to maintain the semblance of
ordered rationality that a strategic competition suggests. The bringing together
of these elements, the formal game system, the expectations of individual
players and the social context of the encounter bring the game to life in the
form of play. Despite the temptation to look to the game box and perceive a
game within it, this is only half of the picture. It is the players, acting within
the context of the gaming encounter, who create the game. To repeat the
words of Erving Goffman, “While the game defines the situation it does not
bring the situation into lively existence” (1961, p. 41).
This is both the work and the pleasure of the player.
 Conclusion

In society ... play phenomena are rarely met in prototypical occurrences: they
are usually mixed up with different behavioural patterns, involved in many
processes at once, and embedded in larger social dynamics. As a result, social
definition of play activities requires a certain degree of variation, in which
different kinds of play activity, with different social meaning, are taken into
account.— Paglieri, 2003a

In this book I have analyzed a particular form of game and the way that
the play of such games is performed, experienced and understood by a very
specific group of people. In adopting this approach to the study of social play,
I have been guided by a simple assumption — that social play cannot be under-
stood without taking into account the broader cultural and sociological context
in which it occurs. For this reason I have drawn on an eclectic range of dis-
ciplines. History, ludology, cultural and subcultural studies, leisure studies
and play theory have all contributed to the picture I have painted of social
play. While this book does not allow an in-depth exploration of any of these
areas, I believe that such a multidisciplinary approach is fundamental in the
study of social play and games. There can be no understanding of adult social
play without this broader context.
Consequently, from a ludo-historical perspective, I have examined the
way that hobby games emerged from the serious practice of war simulation
to become a form of recreation for a small, highly educated, predominantly
male group in society. From the communities that formed around the hobby,
the tendency to experiment with rules led directly to the birth of role-playing
games, a revolutionary manifestation of social play whose impact is still felt
in the tropes of video games today. As hobby gaming grew, so too did the
strong sense of community that inevitably accompanies a shared interest
among a minority group. Although the emergence of computer games had a
significant impact on hobby gaming, the popularity of collectible card games
in the 1990s re-affirmed the attraction of engaging in intellectually challenging
social play that was arguably lacking in the video games of that era. Hobby
gaming survived.
Throughout this period the growth of the hobby industry provided

210
 9. An Act Apart? 211

opportunities to experiment with the form of board and table game in ways
that ran counter to the prevalent “one size fits all” approach of mainstream
games manufacturers. The niche occupied by hobby gaming allowed for the
development of innovative approaches to game design that in turn led to new
mechanics and conceptions of what a board game could be. Meanwhile, in
Germany, designers subject to particular cultural and commercial influences
began to evolve a design aesthetic that reflected the increasing sophistication
of hobby game designs yet was conceived specifically to facilitate social play
among families. As this aesthetic evolved, designers in Germany were forced
to reconsider some of the central tenets of game design in order to create
games that eschewed direct conflict in favor of family-oriented themes and
mechanics.
The design style that materialized from this prolific period of creativity
manifested in a genre of game that has come to be known as the eurogame.
These games are characterized by accessible themes, simple rules, constrained
playing times and a strong emphasis on comparative performance through
non-confrontational interaction. In terms of mechanics, this is achieved
through a focus on personal achievement over direct conflict that tends to
lead to asymmetric goal formation through the process of play. At the same
time, the thematic goals that are assigned to players in eurogames are also
typically infused with personal achievement rather than domination or sub-
jugation. In addition, the loose connection between player roles and the actual
mechanics of the game diminishes the need for aggressive role-playing and
the possibilities for in-game actions to spill out into the “real world.” Taken
together, these traits of eurogames lend themselves to a form of convivial
social play, with the game acting primarily as a framework for intellectual
challenge and social interaction rather than an opportunity for valorization.
With such a strong emphasis on simple rulesets and innovative mechan-
ics, hobby gamers eagerly embraced the games that were emerging from Ger-
many at this time. That the themes and constrained playing times made them
more accessible, particularly to older gamers and their peers, only served to
enhance the appeal. Small groups of enthusiasts, firstly in the U.K. and later
in the U.S., increasingly sought out these games as an alternative to the com-
plex simulation-driven designs that were typical of Anglo-American hobby
board games. The explosive growth of the Internet during the late 1990s fur-
ther accelerated the word-of-mouth interest that eurogames inspired. Before
long, hobbyist publishers in the U.S. emerged to meet the growing demand
for the genre, and designers worldwide were increasingly influenced by the
eurogame aesthetic. By the early 2000s the eurogame had become a staple of
hobby gaming.
The emphasis on games as a social and intellectual activity, rather than
212 EUROGAMES

an opportunity for valorization, made eurogames the perfect match for hobby
gamers precisely because hobby game play has always been centrally concerned
with process, rather than outcome. Wargames have always been primarily an
opportunity to play with history, to see how particular decisions shape the
outcome of events, to experience that process. This emphasis on process over
outcome is reflected in Matthew Kirschenbaum’s observations of the wargam-
ing hobby:
I see a contemporary player and design community (both hobbyist and profes-
sional) that values attention to process in the procedural or quantitative repre-
sentation of complex, often literally contested phenomena.... I see a focus on
the in-game experience, and the after the fact analysis and discussion of what
happened and why Kirshenbaum, 2011].

In role-playing games, which typically eschew the notion of winners and losers
entirely, the emphasis on collaboration leads Fine to suggest that “enjoying
the fantasy ... overrides other considerations” (1983, p. 233). Finally, although
collectible card games are built around a directly competitive model, they
arguably proved popular due to the engaging metagame of deck-building,
which gave hobbyists the opportunity to experiment with the process of game
design on a small scale.1 Even when competition does drive player motivation,
as Lenarcic and Scollay observe, “social aspects of play itself transcend the
mechanics of any particular game” (2005, p. 71).
The play of tabletop games is a complex social activity. Unlike
videogames, where “virtual gamers are hidden away in their warrens, logging-
on to their server of choice” (Lenarcic and Mackay-Scolley, 2005, p. 71), man-
agement of the immediate social setting in tabletop games adds a meta-level
of understanding that cannot help but inform the process of play. The social
context of the game can indeed shape play in a variety of ways, since players
are always mindful of the social environment in which a game encounter takes
place. Goal-orientedness, the perception of fairness, the potential for in-game
emotions to spill outside of the game, the norms of appropriate play and the
leverage of the metagame — all of these factors impact on the process and
experience of play. More significantly, the negotiation of these elements is not
merely a by-product of play but an essential aspect of the process. That
eurogames are strategy games belies the observation that what they are largely
about is the social structures they create.
The connection I make here between the play of strategy games and
wider understandings of social behavior is not a new one. Most famously, in
1959 anthropologists Roberts, Arth and Bush identified an “association
between games of strategy and complexity of social organization” in reviewing
the role of games in culture (1959b, p. 610). Huizinga explicitly privileged
 9. An Act Apart? 213

group forms of play as those most closely linked to the formation of culture,
describing play, and specifically contests, as “civilising functions” operating
in the realm of ritual (1950, p. 47). As Goffman argues, it is through these
forms of ritual that individuals become social beings:

One must look ... to the fact that societies everywhere, if they are to be soci-
eties, must mobilize their members as self-regulating participants in social
encounters. One way of mobilizing the individual for this purpose is through
ritual.... The general capacity to be bound by moral rules may well belong to
the individual, but the particular set of rules which transforms him into a
human being derives from the requirements established in the ritual organiza-
tion of social encounters [1967, pp. 44–45].

The ritual of structured interaction found in games acts to bring about

a collective social identity. Consequently, the push to maintain the integrity
of the social fabric in a gaming encounter frequently supersedes the goals that
are defined by the formal ruleset. This observation suggests a correlation
between the social structure of games and the functioning of society inasmuch
as both are presumed to operate under a form of social contract where “in
place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of asso-
ciation creates a moral and collective body” (Rousseau, 1762, p. 24). While
this is an association frequently cited by games scholars, it is one that has
rarely been explored in any depth. For the group of players discussed in this
research, the presence of an implicit social contract in the performance of
game play is clearly evident.
The idea that hobbyists value the social process of game play over the
game outcome is readily apparent in this book. For the majority of hobbyist
players, game goals — typically associated with winning and losing — are not
of prime importance in terms of the valorization they are imagined to offer.
This is because gamers are, almost by definition, people who are interested
in the form of games and the process of play. They are players for whom goals
are facilitative of the experience they seek rather than the principal source of
enjoyment. Hobbyists play to win because playing to win, rather than win-
ning, is enjoyable.
I am by no means the first to argue for the primacy of process in under-
standings of games. As noted earlier, Suits’ definition of games hinges on the
notion that the goals and constraints of games are “accepted for the sake of
the activity they make possible” (1967, p. 154). Philosopher Hans Gadamer
argues that “the purpose of the game is not really the solution of the task, but
the ordering and shaping of the movement of the game itself ” (1960, p. 107).
This is something that gamers intuitively understand. As games writer Tom
Rosen observes:
214 EUROGAMES

The people who truly fall head over heels for the hobby are the people who
forget about the results of a game as soon as it’s over. They might ponder
what they could have done differently to improve their score, not because
they’re bitter or upset, but rather because they want to continue exploring the
breadth and depth of the rules framework [2009].

This understanding of the nature of game play directly contradicts that

proposed by Juul in his classic game model. Clearly, emotional attachment to
the outcome of a game cannot be described as a “psychological feature of the
game activity” (2005, p. 40), much less a defining one. Yet there can be no
doubt that such attachment is commonly attributed to the experience of com-
petitive play. I propose that it is far more constructive to consider the emo-
tional relationship to the outcome of a given game as being derived from
factors that lie partially outside of the game itself. In short, emotional attach-
ment to the outcome is a product of the metagame.
In their purest form, the goals of all games are arbitrary outside of the
play they facilitate. Yet when metagames infringe upon the play of any par-
ticular game, there is a tendency for players and spectators to become emo-
tionally attached to specific outcomes. This is most obvious in professional
sports, where the meaning of an individual game is amplified through tour-
naments, geographical allegiance and an industry that supports the activity.
Similarly, wagering on the outcome of a given instance of a game typically
intensifies the emotional attachment to outcome. Clearly, here the metagame
overlaying the play can change the experience of the game.
In less formal examples, the specific situational and social context sur-
rounding the play of a game can give rise to nuanced metagames that can
similarly affect a player’s emotional relationship with preferred outcomes. For
example, long-standing competitive relationships with other players, a suc-
cession of winning outcomes or the understanding that particular players have
an adverse reaction to losing may act to shape this emotional attachment.
These are all examples of the way that informal — often unspoken —
metagames can bring about changes in the way that players relate to the out-
come of a game.
Earlier in this book I suggested that Richard Garfield’s description of the
metagame as “how a game interfaces with real life” (2000, p. 16) could be
interpreted so broadly as to suggest that all previous experience of play in a
player’s life could be considered as contributing to the metagame. Taking this
idea literally, it is apparent that all players must come to a given game with
a particular framework for understanding the nature of play activities. These
predispositions and beliefs then shape their approach to games and to the
importance of valorization through outcomes. For some, this is a significant
factor in their decision to play; for others it is not. In some cases it may be
 9. An Act Apart? 215

that the possibility of losing is of such emotional weight that an individual

may choose not to play. These attitudes stem largely from personal experience
of play and games, but they are also shaped by the schizophrenic attitude
with which contemporary western culture frames competitive play.
On the one hand, most children are raised with the understanding that
competitive games are principally concerned with facilitating play — that while
the pursuit of goals is incumbent upon the player, emotional attachment to
these goals is entirely inappropriate. As parents we teach children that winning
and losing are not important, it is “how you play the game” that matters.
Despite this understanding, our culture typically frames competitive play in
the same light as any other goal-driven endeavor. The importance that is
placed upon achievement, winning and valorization through the discourses
of sport, business and all manner of other competitive fields, has increasingly
bled through into understandings of play. It is, perhaps, the prevalence of this
attitude that deters many people from the play of competitive social games.
If winning matters and losers are expected to be unhappy, why take the chance?
Games are one of the few examples of a cultural activity in which goals
are entirely arbitrary. Indeed, it is precisely this autotelic aspect of play that
leads many to dismiss games as a trivial and ultimately worthless activity. In
contrast, our daily lives are filled with the pursuit of goals that have tangible
consequences in the real world. Understandably, we are attached to the results
of these activities and experience pleasure when we achieve them. In games,
however, while emotional attachment to preferred outcomes may enhance
enjoyment, it can also serve to diminish the uniqueness of the play activity
as a ritual performed purely for its own purpose. The playful element of game
play can be jeopardized by the emotional concerns of the players.
Hobby gamers love games. They purchase, collect, compare, discuss and
analyze games with a passion that goes far beyond casual interest. Yet the
source of their enthusiasm can only truly be realized when they sit down with
others to play. The social situation that arises from game play is a culmination
of all the peripheral activities that make up the hobby. If these players have
an attachment to anything, it is to the quality of the social encounter that
circumscribes this moment. As a group who value the process of play above
any implied valorization, maintenance of this process is paramount. So while
on the one hand they are actively bound to prescribed goals by the social con-
tract of the game, on the other, they tend to avoid overly strong attachment
to outcomes in ways that might disrupt the social fabric of the encounter. It
is only when this balance is achieved that gamers can immerse themselves in
the genuine source of their enjoyment — a convivial environment within which
to explore the intellectual engagement that arises from the pursuit of arbitrary
goals.
This page intentionally left blank
 Chapter Notes
Preface
1. Advanced, of course (Gygax, 1977).
2. Against the Giants (G1-3), Descent into the
Depths of the Earth (D1-2) and Queen of the De-
monweb Pits (Q1).
3. Harris, 1983.
4. Eberle, Kittredge & Olotka, 1977.
5. Lamorisse, 1959.
6. Vaccarino, 2008.
Introduction
1. See also Eskelinen, 2001.
2. Zagal, Rick and Hsi (2006) have analyzed
play of the board game Lord of the Rings (Knizia,
2000a) to understand how collaborative games
might be better implemented on computers. Oth-
ers have attempted to leverage the inherently social
nature of board games in the implementation of
electronic games (Björk et al., 2001; de Boer and
Lamers, 2004; Peitz et al., 2005). Patrick Crogan
interprets the lengthy history of wargames as a
“forerunner of contemporary modelling and sim-
ulation practices” (2003). This analysis of board
games with a view to how they might relate to the
design of video games is an approach I have also
adopted in the past (Woods, 2009).
3. See, for example, Schwarz and Faber, 1997;
Anspach, 2000; Orbanes, 2003; and Orbanes,
2007.
4. For a detailed history of early wargaming,
also see Owen, 1990; and Perla, 1990.
5. See, for example, Borgstrom, 2007; Czege,
2007; Mona, 2007; and Cook, 2009.
6. For an example of this activity, see Montola
and Stenros, 2004. For examples of other writing
on the role-playing genre see Edwards, 2001;
Waskul and Lust, 2004; Copier, 2005; Dormans,
2006; Beattie, 2007; and Tychsen et al., 2007.
7. See, for example, Weninger, 2006; and
Williams, 2006.
8. Of particular interest are Kevin Jacklin’s
design analysis of Reiner Knizia’s work, John
217
Kaulfield’s discussion of randomness, and Ira
Fay’s description of overseeing expansion devel-
opment for Uwe Rosenburg’s Agricola (2007).
9. Martin Krause (2007) adopts a more busi-
ness-oriented approach to the success of board
games in Germany in his masters thesis.
10. As an example, an issue such as self-hand-
icapping proves particularly difficult to gauge
without a clear understanding of both intent and
internal attitudes.
11. See, for example, Redhead, 1993; Giulan-
otti, 1995; and Wheaton, 2002.
12. See, for example, Doyle and Sorenson,
1993.
13. For further information, see http://wabo
ardgamers.org.au.
14. For further information, see http://www.
boardgamesaustralia.org.au.
Chapter 1
1. It is noteworthy that Parlett includes a
number of commercially produced abstract
games, such as Alex Randolph’s Twixt (1961) and
Piet Hein’s Hex (1942). For the purposes of this
classification, such games are not considered
classical but serve as examples of the mechanics
Parlett is describing.
2. A number of texts discuss the emergence
of commercial board game production during
the late 19th and early 20th century, notably
Bruce Whitehill’s American Boxed Games and
their Makers: 1822 –1992 (1992) and America-
nopoly: America as Seen Through Its Games
(2004), Kenneth Brown’s The British Toy Busi-
ness: A History Since 1700 (1996), Margaret
Hofer’s The Games We Played (2003) and R. C.
Bell’s Games to Play (1988). More company-
specific titles include The Game Makers: The
Story of Parker Brothers, from Tiddledy Winks to
Trivial Pursuit (Orbanes, 2003), Milton Bradley
(Miller, 2004) and Games We Play: History of
J.W. Spear & Sons (Schwarz & Faber, 1997).
218 NOTES — CHAPTER 1
3. Arguably, it is unfair to dismiss Hasbro in
this way given the constraints of the U.S. mass-
market, particularly in terms of game complexity
and the need to sell significant numbers of games
in order to justify mass production.
4. For example, the “Hearts family,” “Whist/
Bridge family” and “Rummy games.” Arnold
Marks uses a similar categorization method in his
book on the topic of card games (Marks, 1995).
5. Interestingly, Stam makes a similar point
with regard to film when he says, “Subject mat-
ter is the weakest criterion for generic grouping
because it fails to take into account how the sub-
ject is treated” (2000, p. 14).
6. For example, while Wolf describes “Shoot
’Em Up” and “Dodging” games by the principal
player interaction, other examples include
“Sports” (theme), “Escape” (goal) and “Card
Games” (medium of origin) (2002, p. 117).
7. For example, Warhammer 40,000 Collectible
Card Game (Peterschmidt and Miller, 2001), War-
lord: Saga of the Storm (Williams, 2001).
8. The beginnings of this activity can be traced
to 1780 and the development of a war game by
Helwig, Master of the Pages for the Duke of
Brunswick. The game, which was played out on
a table of 1666 squares, featured differing abilities
for units, terrain effects and early rules for
fortresses and entrenchment (Sutton-Smith and
Avedon, 1971b, p. 273; Freeman, 1980). At the
same time, there is evidence that civilians had
taken to modifying the rules of existing games,
such as Chess and Draughts, to better simulate con-
temporary warfare (Dunnigan, 1997). The first
modern military usage of games is usually attrib-
uted to the Prussian army in the early 19th century
(Freeman, 1980; Dunnigan, 1997; Jones, 1998).
Dissatisfied with current forms of training, the
Prussians (and, later, the re-unified Germans) uti-
lized games as models for strategic thinking. These
early games implemented terrain effects and even
more realistic military maps, and were notable for
the inclusion of the effects of military intelligence.
In some games the presence of an umpire meant
that players were not necessarily able to know the
position or exact aims of their adversary. The neu-
tral umpire held such information and revealed
only what was logically “knowable” to the com-
mander of the force. This group of games, known
as Kriegspiel, were divided by the emergence of
“free” Kriegspiel, in which an umpire suitably
versed in the art of warfare made critical judg-
ments over success and failure—as opposed to the
“rigid” Kriegspiel in which all judgments were rig-
orously decided by a complex set of tables.
9. In 1913, science fiction writer H. G. Wells
published Little Wars (1913). The book, which
detailed a ruleset for playing wargames with lead
miniatures, can be considered the precursor to
modern miniatures wargaming. For just over
forty years, Wells’ rules, along with those of
Naval historian Fletcher Pratt (1943), consti-
tuted the only form of recreational wargaming
(Freeman, 1980, p. 14).
10. This was largely due to the efforts of Jack
Scruby in the U.S. who developed a method for
producing figures from rubber moulds, and Don
Featherstone in the U.K. The pair worked to-
gether on the early newsletter War Game Digest
(Beattie, n.d.; Gray, 2008).
11. For example, Gettysburg (Roberts, 1958a),
Waterloo (Shaw and Schutz, 1962), D-Day
(Roberts, 1961).
12. Originally an amateur fanzine produced
by U.S. serviceman Chris Wagner, Strateg y &
Tactics helped to cement the community that
was gathering around the hobby by soliciting
the opinions of players regarding the types of
games they wished to see produced, and by ac-
tive discussion of products other than those of-
fered by SPI (Costikyan, 1996).
13. Although Costikyan’s claim is somewhat
outdated, it is unlikely, especially given the de-
cline of the wargaming hobby, that any title has
surpassed the sales of Squad Leader.
14. Avalon Hill also grew their product line
through the acquisition of companies such as
Sports Illustrated Games, 3M Games and Bat-
tleline, whose successful titles Wooden Ships and
Iron Men (Taylor, 1975) and the Diplomacy-in-
spired Machiavelli (Taylor and Wood, 1977) were
brought into the company’s product line. Im-
portantly, the company also purchased the rights
to Diplomacy and gave the game widespread dis-
tribution.
15. For example, Terrible Swift Sword (Berg,
1976) and Sniper! (Dunnigan, 1973).
16. Broadsides and Boarding Parties was an
elaborately produced version of Harris’ game,
originally released as a paper and chit wargame
by Citadel Game Systems in 1981.
17. Known as the Gamemaster series, the line
was made up of Axis and Allies (Harris, 1981),
Broadsides and Boarding Parties, Conquest of the
Empire (Harris, 1984), Fortress America (Gray,
1986a) and Shogun (Gray, 1986b), later renamed
Samurai Swords.
18. For example, TSR’s Onslaught (Niles, 1987)
and the book/film-related The Hunt for Red Oc-
tober (Niles, 1988), GDW’s Battle for Moscow
(Chadwick, 1986), and Avalon Hill’s Platoon (Tay-
lor, 1986) and Gettysburg (Taylor, 1988).
19. The story of the series of events that led
up to the “invention” of Dungeons & Dragons is
a complex one involving many players, each with
their own interpretation and recollection of
events. More detailed descriptions of the origins
of the game can be found in Fine, 1983; Mason,
2004; and Mona, 2007.
20. The game was turned down by a number
 Notes — Chapter 2
of game companies, and the first 1000 copies
produced by Gygax’s own company, Tactical
Studies Rules (TSR), would take 11 months to
sell (Fine, 1983, p. 15).
21. Among the first of these were Tunnels and
Trolls (Andre, 1975), a simpler game notable for
the inclusion of solo rules; Chaosium’s Runequest
(Perrin et al., 1978), another fantasy offering that
described an elaborate pseudo–bronze age world
and was the first to incorporate a system of char-
acter skills ( Jaquays, 2007); and Marc Miller’s
Traveller (Miller, 1977), a science fictional take
on the genre that famously described an elabo-
rate fictional universe, the Third Imperium,
with a history stretching over hundreds of thou-
sand of years (Pondsmith, 2007).
22. TSR expanded their range to include
post-apocalyptic ( Jaquet and Ward, 1978), west-
ern (Gygax and Blume, 1975) and spy thriller
settings (Rasmussen, 1980), with other compa-
nies soon following suit in the search for new
material. Superheroes received the role-playing
treatment in the 1980s with both Hero Games’
Champions (MacDonald et al., 1981) and TSR’s
own Marvel Super Heroes (Grubb, 1984). Cham-
pions was among the first role-playing games to
use a balanced points system to establish char-
acter traits (earlier games had relied on random
die rolls) (Bridges, 2007), while Marvel Super
Heroes took the opposite approach in supplying
characters with wildly imbalanced attributes that
were intended to mirror the fictional realities of
the Marvel comic universe (Kenson, 2007).
Horror-themed games quickly appeared, the
most successful of which was Chaosium’s Call of
Cthulhu (Peterson, 1981). Based upon the mythos
of H. P. Lovecraft, Call of Cthulhu saw the fa-
miliar notion of gradual character development
replaced by a slow descent into insanity.
23. The flexibility of role-playing was amply
demonstrated by games such as Paranoia
(Costikyan et al., 1984), a darkly humorous take
on a dystopian computer-controlled society that
often pitted players against each other through
hidden agendas, and Toon (Costikyan and Spec-
tor, 1984), simultaneously a comedic attempt to
mirror the lunacy of cartoons and a subtle jibe
at the seriousness of the role-playing genre.
24. Lion Rampant’s Ars Magica (Tweet and
Rein-Hagen, 1987) is indicative of this evolu-
tion, as players take turns in the role of game
master (story guide) and switch between char-
acters (each player initially creates three charac-
ters) as the story progresses. Erick Wujcik pushed
this emphasis still further in the introduction of
Amber Diceless (1991), a game set in the universe
of Roger Zelazny’s series of science fiction books,
The Chronicles of Amber, which, as the title sug-
gests, dispensed with the use of dice completely.
25. Werewolf: The Apocalypse (Rein-Hagen,
219
1992), Mage: The Ascension (Wieck et al., 1993),
Wraith: The Oblivion (Rein-Hagen et al., 1994),
Changeling: The Dreaming (Rein-Hagen et al.,
1995), Hunter: The Reckoning (Rein-Hagen et
al., 1999), Mummy: The Resurrection (Achilli et
al., 2001) and Demon: The Fallen (Stolze and
Tinworth, 2002).
26. Live action role-playing games (LARPs)
are a form of role-playing that, as the name sug-
gests, take play away from the tabletop environ-
ment to a larger theatrical scale.
27. “Gamism is expressed by competition
among participants (the real people); it includes
victory and loss conditions for characters, both
short-term and long-term, that reflect on the
people’s actual play strategies. The listed ele-
ments provide an arena for the competition”
(Edwards, 2001).
28. Among those games that continue to
demonstrate innovation in the independent role-
playing genre are Dust Devils (Snyder, 2002), a
spaghetti-western RPG which incorporates an
innovative poker mechanic for event resolution;
My Life with Master (Czege, 2003), a comedic
take on the gothic horror genre which sees play-
ers taking the role of servants to an evil master;
and Donjon (Nixon, 2002), an interesting at-
tempt to revisit early fantasy role-playing games
while further empowering players to create the
game in conjunction with the game master.
29. The game was published by Wizards of
the Coast in 1994 (Garfield, 1994).
30. Renamed Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
in 1995.
31. Derived from the gameworld of the RPG
game Feng Shui (Laws, 1996).
32. For example, Netrunner (Garfield, 1996),
Deadlands: Doomtown (Williams, 1998), adapted
from the Deadlands RPG (Hensley, 1996), and
Legend of the Burning Sands (Williams and Lau,
1998), set in the same fictional universe as Legend
of the Five Rings.
33. For example, Highlander TCG (Sager,
1996), James Bond 007 GoldenEye (Winter,
1995), X-Files (Macdonell and Kent, 1996) and
Xena: Warrior Princess CCG (1998).
Chapter 2
1. Interestingly, this was not the first time
that a bookshelf design had been utilized for
games. McLoughlin Brothers had adopted a
similar design style for a range of games as early
as 1875 (Whitehill, 1992, p. 165).
2. The full list of 3M’s Bookshelf series
comprises the independently designed Acquire
(Sackson, 1962), Bazaar (Sackson, 1967), Break-
thru (Randolph, 1965), Challenge Football (Her-
schler, 1972a), Challenge Golf at Pebble Beach
220 NOTES — CHAPTER 2
(Herschler, 1972b), Contigo (Thibault, 1974),
Events (1974), Executive Decision (Sackson, 1971),
Facts in Five (Onanien, 1967), Feudal (Buestch-
ler, 1967), Foil (Herschler, 1968), High Bid
(Winters and Winters, 1962), Image (Szwarce,
1973), Jumpin (1964), Mr. President (Carmichael,
1967), Oh-Wah-Ree (a mancala variant) (Ran-
dolph, 1962), Phlounder (Bernett, 1962), Ploy
(Thibault, 1970), Point of Law (Lipman, 1972),
Quinto (1964), Stocks and Bonds (1964) and
Twixt (Randolph, 1961), along with versions of
Backgammon, Challenge Bridge (a Bridge variant),
Chess and Go, and the unreleased Jati (Havens,
1965) and Mad Mate (Randolph, 1972).
3. After living in Japan for a short period,
Randolph moved to Venice, where, along with de-
signers Leo Colovini and Dario de Toffoli, he es-
tablished the publisher Venice Connections in
1995. Over the course of his life Randolph would
design a number of Spiel des Jahres contenders be-
fore his death in 2004. An active member of the
game design community, Sackson too had a sig-
nificant number of games short listed for the Spiel
des Jahres and is also reputed to have accumulated
the largest private collection of games in the world
before his death in 2002. Along with his design
work, Sackson wrote a short column for Strategy
& Tactics magazine, discussing non-wargames in
the 1970s, and authored A Gamut of Games (1969),
a compendium of rules for abstract games, some
of which were later published as boxed games.
4. Klaus Teuber and Wolfgang Kramer,
among others, list Sackson as being influential
in their work (“Interview with Klaus Teuber,”
2005; Vasel, 2005a).
5. The majority of the information con-
tained in this section discussing the early years
of the gaming hobby in the U.K. was provided
in a series of interviews with gaming writer Stu-
art Dagger, to whom I am exceedingly grateful.
6. Later republished by Parker Brothers in
Germany as Ultra.
7. Published by Milton Bradley, among oth-
ers, as Conspiracy.
8. Ariel began life as a small division of
Philmar Ltd., a card game manufacturer who
expanded into board games during the 1960s
(Bloomfield, 2005).
9. Strangely enough, the success of this ar-
guably mediocre game is attributed to its inclu-
sion in the first versions of Gygax and Arneson’s
Dungeons and Dragons. In the booklet describing
wilderness encounters, the authors assume that
players have access to Dunnigan’s game (Gygax
and Arneson, 1974b).
10. Part of a trilogy that also included Outreach
(Hardy, 1976) and Starsoldier (Walczyk, 1977).
11. Other SPI Science Fiction–themed games
during this period include Battle Fleet Mars (Si-
monsen, 1977), Titan Strike (Kosnett, 1979), John
Carter Warlord of Mars (Herman and Goldberg,
1979), Wreck of the B.S.M. Pandora (Dunnigan,
1980b), The Sword and the Stars (Smith, 1981), The
Return of the Stainless Steel Rat (Costikyan and Si-
monsen, 1981), and Star Trader (Simonsen, 1982).
Many more games were published in SPI’s dedi-
cated science fiction and fantasy gaming magazine
Ares.
12. War of the Ring (Berg and Barasch, 1977),
Gondor (Berg, 1977) and Sauron (Mosca, 1977)
13. The complete line of Metagaming’s Mi-
crogame line comprised Ogre ( Jackson, 1977b),
Chitin I (Thompson, 1977a), Melee ( Jackson,
1977a), Warp War (Thompson, 1977b), Rivets
(Taylor, 1977), Wizard (Jackson, 1978b), Olympica
(Willis, 1978), G.E.V. ( Jackson, 1978a), Ice War
(Gross, 1978), Black Hole (Taylor, 1978), Sticks
and Stones (Ray, 1978), Invasion of the Air-Eaters
(Gross, 1979), Holy War (Willis, 1979), Annihi-
lator and One World (Armintrout, 1980), Hot
Spot (Armintrout, 1979), Artifact (Williams,
1980), Dimension Demons (Askew, 1981), The
Lords of Underearth (Gross, 1981), Helltank (Kos-
nett, 1981), Trailblazer (Costikyan, 1981), Star-
leader: Assault! (Thompson, 1982), and Helltank
Destroyer (Kosnett, 1982).
14. Jackson’s Car Wars ( Jackson and Irby,
1981), which takes its thematic cue from movies
such as Deathrace 2000 and Mad Max, is a no-
table microgame that spawned a number of suc-
cessful expansions and being eventually re-re-
leased as a boxed game.
15. Interestingly, Cosmic Encounter was orig-
inally licensed by Parker Brothers, but after ne-
gotiations fell through, the Eon team self-pub-
lished the game (Vasel, 2005b).
16. For example, Bruno Faidutti: “Cosmic En-
counter would later impact my own game designs
the most profoundly” (2007); Richard Garfield:
“Though there are about a dozen games that have
directly influenced Magic in one way or another,
the game’s most influential ancestor is a game
for which I have no end of respect: Cosmic En-
counter” (as cited in Mulligan, 2002); and Steve
Jackson, on the design of Illuminati (1983): “I’m
a great admirer of Eon’s Cosmic Encounter. I de-
cided to go for the same free-wheeling, back-
stabbing play style. Another similarity to CE
was the idea that each player would have his own
special power” ( Jackson, n.d.).
17. West End Games in 1986, Mayfair Games
in 1991, and Avalon Hill in 2000. Fantasy Flight
Games re-issued the game in late 2008.
18. Strangely enough, Sid Meier, developer of
the original Civilization computer game (1991),
has claimed that he had not played Tresham’s de-
sign, yet Bruce Shelley, Meier’s co-designer at Mi-
croprose, was an ex–Avalon Hill employee who
had worked on the localization of Tresham’s 1829
for the company and played Civilization fre-
 Notes — Chapter 3
quently (Edwards, 2007). Following a string of
successful sequels to the computer game, in 2002
Eagle Games published Sid Maier’s Civilization:
The Board Game (Drover, 2002), an adaptation
of Civilization III (Briggs and Johnson, 2001). In
2010, Fantasy Flight Games published an entirely
different game by the same name (Wilson, 2010),
adapted from Civilization V (Schafer, 2010).
19. The game upon which Dover Patrol was
based was L’Attaque, designed by Frenchwoman
Hermance Edan (1909).
20. Among the games that have re-imple-
mented Pulsipher’s design in different historical
contexts are Maharaja (Sandercock and Martin,
1994), Charles Vasey’s Chariot Lords (1999)
and the more recent The Dragon and the Pearl
(Richardson, 2004).
21. Dungeon! was later published by Parker
Brothers, among others, and was revised to fa-
cilitate more cooperative play in 1989 and 1992
as The New Dungeon! and The Classic Dungeon!
respectively.
22. Notably, the 2007 re-implementation
adds several additional mechanisms and shortens
the game significantly. Changes were con-
tributed by European designers Bruno Faidutti
and Pierre Clequin, and Fantasy Flight’s Corey
Konieczka (Carver, 2006; Dagger, 2006a).
23. Or Blood Royal— Carver insists the extra
“e” is incorrect! (Carver, 2008)
24. Talisman Expansion Set (Harris, 1986),
Talisman: The Adventure (Merrett et al., 1986),
Talisman Dungeon (Harris, 1987), Talisman
Timescape (Bourque, 1988), Talisman City (Mor-
row and Friedman, 1989) and Talisman Dragons
(Morrow and Friedman, 1993).
25. For example, British Rails (Henninger et
al., 1984), Mexican Rails (1989), North American
Rails (1992), Eurorails (Bromley, 1990), Nippon
Rails (1992), Australian Rails (Roznai, 1994),
India Rails (Fawcett, 1999), Iron Dragon (Brom-
ley and Wham, 1996), Lunar Rails (Stribula,
2003), Russian Rails (Soares, 2004), and China
Rails (Dreiling, 2007).
26. Reworked for the U.S. market as 1830:
The Game of Railroads and Robber Barons (Tre-
sham, 1986).
27. Originally published by the Swiss com-
pany Fata Morgana.
28. Avalon Hill acquired the rights to Battle-
line’s Circus Maximus upon taking over the com-
pany. The game was subsequently reworked and
split into two games —Gladiator (Matheny, 1981),
which focused upon arena combat, and Circus
Maximus, a race game.
29. Famously, the rules include a section on
sanctioned rule-breaking.
30. Designer John Wick has compared this
element of the game to Magic: The Gathering
(2007).
221
31. “Beer and pretzel” is a term commonly
used to describe games that feature a large
amount of randomness and a light theme.
32. Arkham Horror was redesigned and re-
leased by Fantasy Flight Games in 2005 (Wilson,
2005).
Chapter 3
1. Memory has subsequently sold approxi-
mately 50 million copies (Hanson, 2006, p. 45).
2. In 2010 Spielbox began simultaneous
publication in English.
3. Tepper estimates that a Spiel des Jahres–
winning game can expect to sell between 300,000
to 500,000 copies (2007), though some have
easily surpassed this figure (e.g., Carcassonne, Die
Siedler von Catan).
4. Strangely, in a more recent interview, Wer-
neck has suggested that this “pressure on the game
industry” was largely incidental: “The originators
of Spiel des Jahres were — and still are — game
critics. We are responsible to our ‘customers’
which are the readers of our columns. There is
no responsibility to either trade or industry. So
our aim was to focus on good games. The fact
that trade or industry would benefit from our de-
cision was willingly tolerated, since we know that
companies can only invest in better products if
they had earned money before” (Yu, 2011a).
5. This was awarded in 2001 to Reiner
Knizia’s Der Herr der Ringe (2000a), a coopera-
tive game based upon Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.
6. The International Gamers Awards were
established in the U.S. in 2000 “to recognize out-
standing games and designers, as well as the com-
panies that publish them” (Schloesser, 2008b).
7. Originally established in 1974 as the
Charles S. Roberts Awards, the U.S.–based Ori-
gins Awards are voted upon by members of the
Academy of Adventure Gaming, Arts and De-
sign, and announced at the annual Origins
Game Fair. In 1987 the awards were separated,
with the Charles S. Roberts award now inde-
pendently awarded at the World Boardgaming
Championships (formerly Avaloncon) (“Acad-
emy of Adventure Gaming,” 2008).
8. The Spiel des Jahres jury has acknowl-
edged more complex games with the Sonderpreis
Komplexes Spiel and, more recently, with the Ken-
nerspiel des Jahres.
9. As well as an overall prize, the Spiel der
Spiele recommends games for families, games for
friends, games for children, games for everyone,
games for two and games for experts (“Spielen
in Österreich,” 2008).
10. Although, as previously noted, this prac-
tice had also been common in wargames.
11. So called because the initial proclamation
222 NOTES — CHAPTER 4
was signed on the back of a beer coaster. Initi-
ated by Reinhold Wittig, the thirteen signatories
were Wittig, Helge Andersen, Hajo Bücken,
Erwin Glonegger, Dirk Hanneforth, Max Kob-
bert, Wolfgang Kramer, Joe Nikisch, Gilbert
Obermeier, Alex Randolph, John Rüttinger,
Roland Siegers and an as yet unidentified de-
signer (“Game Designers — A Plea,” 2010).
12. It is a testimony to Wittig’s combination
of these two pursuits that he has won no less
than five Sonderpreis “Schönes Spiel” for, chrono-
logically, Das Spiel (1980), a game comprising
281 dice in a pyramid formation, Wir füttern die
kleinen Nilpferde (1983), a children’s game,
Müller & Sohn (1986), a two player roll and
move game themed around mill construction,
Kula Kula (1993), a nautical set collection game
that utilizes sea shells and wooden boats, and
the beautiful abstract Doctor Faust (1994).
13. Interestingly, “Game Designer’s Associa-
tion” is the translation offered up for interna-
tional members.
14. Originally entitled Rafting.
15. Originally entitled Das Spiel der Weinberge.
16. Münchner Spielwies’n (2008).
17. Spielefest (2008).
18. Wargames.
19. It is interesting to note that this aversion
to violence also applies to video games, where
Germany is described as having “the most strin-
gent anti-violence laws” in Europe (Thayer and
Kolko, 2004, p. 486).
20. Thornquist is here referring to the Essen
Games Fair, discussed later in this chapter.
21. Game Manufacturer’s Association.
22. In 2010 the collection of the Deutches
Spiele-Archiv was purchased by the city of
Nuremberg (Helldörfer, 2010).
Chapter 4
1. For example, Kosmos (previously Franckh
Spiele-Galerie), an imprint of Franckh-Kosmos
Verlags-GmbH & Co.; and Goldsieber, an im-
print of Simba Toys, formed in 1995,
2. For example, Amigo Spiel (1980), Queen
Games (1992), Drei Magier Spiele (1994), and
Adlung-Spiuele (1990).
3. Originally commissioned by a German
road haulage company (Walker, 1989).
4. Between these two Spiel des Jahres–win-
ning games, Kramer and his wife Ursula also de-
signed the highly regarded Wildlife Adventure
(1985), a reworking of which, Expedition (Kramer,
1996b), would be nominated for the award in
1996.
5. The General was Avalon Hill’s in-house
magazine.
6. In 2004 Walker temporarily revived
Games International in both a print and online
format, but publication ceased again in 2006.
7. Moon published three games in Germany
in 1990: Wer Hat Mehr? (1990c), later reprinted
as Where’s Bob’s Hat?; Gespenster (1990b), a re-
release of the game Black Spy (1981), which Moon
had designed while at Avalon Hill; and Airlines
(1990a), a reimplementation of which, Union
Pacific (1999), would be nominated for the Spiel
des Jahres in 1999.
8. Re-issued by Milton Bradley as Daytona
500, Quandary, Bandu and Dragon Tales Match-
ing Game, respectively.
9. Reprinted by Avalon Hill in the U.S. as
Adel Verpflichtet (subtitled “The Great Bluffing
Game from Germany”) and, later, as By Hook or
Crook (1990b); in the U.K. by Gibsons Games
as Fair Means or Foul (1990c); and by Überplay
worldwide in 2004 as Hoity Toity.
10. Interestingly, 6-Tage Rennen was not pro-
duced by a dedicated games company but by a
group promoting cycling, Holtmann VIP.
11. Vasey was co-author of the popular war
game review magazine Perfidious Albion. Far-
quhar would later become a playtester for Reiner
Knizia and contribute substantially to Der Herr
der Ringe and Blue Moon, Knizia’s expandable
card game (2004c), among other titles.
12. Breese is the designer and publisher of
Reef Encounter (2004) and the successful “Key”
series of games in the European mold, Keywood
(1995), Keydom (1998), Keytown (2000), Keythe-
dral (2002) and Keyharvest (2007).
13. Bob Scherer-Hoock (Scherer-Hoock,
2003) notes that among the games played at the
event were : Ausbrecher (Bücken, 1988), Cash
(Kramer and Grunau, 1990), Civilization, Die
Macher, Drachenlachen (Wittig, 1984), Favoriten
(Müller, 1989), Hare & Tortoise, Haithabu (Ross,
1975), Homas Tour (Bontenbal, 1979), Jump the
Queue (1989), Karawane (Bartl et al., 1990), Kar-
riere Poker (1988), McMulti, Niki Lauda’s Formel
1, Ogallala (Hoffmann, 1975), Railway Rivals,
Sahara (Bücken, 1990), Traber Derby (Urack,
1989), Up the River (Ludwig, 1988), Wildlife Ad-
venture and Adel Verpflichtet.
14. A problematic issue with the submission
of game designs is that companies will often re-
fuse to view unpublished prototypes lest they
make themselves vulnerable to later claims of
copyright infringement.
15. Junior Labyrinth (Kobbert, 1995),
Labyrinth der Ringe (Kobbert, 1998), Labyrinth:
Das Kartenspiel (Kobbert, 2000), 3D Labyrinth
(Kobbert, 2002), Lord of the Rings Labyrinth
(Kobbert, 2003), Labyrinth — Die Schatzjagd
(Baars, 2005) and Master Labyrinth (Kobbert,
2007).
16. A re-release of the earlier Homas Tour
(Bontenbal, 1979).
 Notes — Chapter 5
17. A degree of confusion surrounds the ori-
gins of Borg’s game. Originally titled Liars Dice
and published by Milton Bradley in 1987, the
game is similar to the public domain game known
as Dudo or Perudo.
18. Originally published by the German com-
pany Moskito.
19. Falco, 1991.
20. Eventually Mike Siggins would con-
tribute to the site in a deal which allowed Tid-
well to transcribe the majority of Sumo’s back
issues onto The Game Cabinet (Tidwell, 2008).
21. The English translation of Die Siedler von
Catan is The Settlers of Catan.
22. Dott was the president of Avalon Hill at
the time.
23. 1835 was a German take on Tresham’s
railroad designs.
24. Reprinted as Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix.
25. Reprinted as Streetcar.
26. Interestingly, Entdecker was a part of a
larger game that Teuber had presented to Kos-
mos. The publisher was reluctant to produce
such an expansive design, encouraging Teuber
to break up the game into its constituent parts.
Entdecker was the result of the first explorative
portion of the game, while Die Siedler von Catan
came from the development-focused endgame
(“Interview with Klaus Teuber,” 2005).
27. Re-issued (updated) in 2007 as El Capi-
tan (Rösner and Kramer, 2007).
28. Clifford, 2000.
29. Tummelson discusses this decision in an
interview with Stephen Glenn:
The Bromley family decided to leave Mayfair
and tried to sell it. I really thought that there
was a market — or should be — for the German
style games in the U.S. so I decided to create my
own company to do it. The first step was to try
to buy Mayfair, but the family wanted too much
for the company — so I just started my own
company and forged ahead. Using what I had
learned at Mayfair: primarily the mistake of
reprinting and not cooperating with the Ger-
mans (Tummelson in Glenn, 1999b).
30. Fossil, Mississippi Queen, Mississippi Queen:
The Black Rose (Hodel, 1998b), Edison & Co.
(Burkhardt, 1998), Löwenherz (Teuber, 1998)
and Ido (Weber, 1998).
31. Mamma Mia (Rosenberg, 1999).
32. Tikal (Kramer and Kiesling, 1999).
33. Torres (Kramer and Kiesling, 2000a).
34. Branham, an active game designer and
writer, was also responsible for The Gaming
Dumpster, an online rules resource.
35. Action Points — a mechanic whereby sev-
eral actions are available to a player in their turn
but limited by the expenditure of action points.
36. Carcassonne—Wirtshäuser und Kathedralen
(Wrede, 2002), Carcassonne—Händler & Baumeis-
223
ter (Wrede, 2003a), Carcassonne — Burgfräulein
und Drache (Wrede, 2005), Carcassonne — Der
Turm (Wrede, 2006), Carcassonne — Abtei und
Bürgermeister (Wrede, 2007b), Carcassonne —
Graf, König und Konsorten (Wrede, 2008).
37. Carcassonne: Neues Land (Wrede and
Colovini, 2005), Carcassonne: Die Burg (Wrede
and Knizia, 2003).
38. For example, designers such as Martin
Wallace and Richard Breese (U.K.), Bruno
Faidutti (France), Leo Colovini (Italy) and
Philippe Keyaerts (Belgium).
39. South Korea has a particularly active
board game community.
40. Ticket to Ride: Europe (Moon, 2005),
Ticket to Ride: Märklin Edition (Moon, 2006),
Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries (Moon, 2007a)
Ticket to Ride: The Card Game (Moon, 2008a)
and Ticket to Ride: The Dice Game (Moon, 2008c).
41. Ticket to Ride: Mystery Train Expansion
(Moon, 2004b), Ticket to Ride: Switzerland
(Moon, 2007b) and Ticket to Ride: The Dice Ex-
pansion (Moon, 2008b).
42. A re-working of Michael Schacht’s Kar-
dinal & König (2000).
43. A subsidiary of Überplay, Inspiration
Games, published religious-themed variations
on popular games, such as The Settlers of Zara-
hemla (Teuber, 2003) and The Ark of the Covenant
(Wrede, 2003b), re-workings of Die Siedler von
Catan and Carcassonne, respectively.
44. For example, Primordial Soup (originally
published as Ursuppe (Matthäus and Nestel,
1997), Santiago (Hely & Pelek, 2003) and Il
Principe (Ornella, 2005).
45. For example, Parthenon: Rise of the Aegean
(Parks and Hawkins, 2005), Pandemic (Leacock,
2008) and Wasabi (Gertzbein and Cappel, 2008).
46. For example, Twilight Imperium 3rd Edi-
tion (Petersen, 2005), Battlelore (Borg, 2006),
Bootleggers (Beyer et al., 2004), and Nexus Ops
(Catino, 2005).
47. Voltage (Yu, 2006a) and Desert Bazaar
(Yu, 2006b).
48. Risk (Revised Edition) (Daviau, 2008).
Designer Rob Daviau has acknowledged the in-
fluence of eurogames in the development of
more recent Hasbro titles (Vasel, 2005d).
49. The designer, Donald Vaccarino, had
been involved in the development of cards for
Magic: The Gathering.
Chapter 5
1. A number of titles included in this sample
would likely not be considered eurogames by
hobbyists or publishers (e.g., Die Werwölfe von
Düsterwald (Davidoff et al., 2001) and Kris
Burm’s Gipf series of games: Dvonn (2001), Gipf
224 NOTES — CHAPTER 5
(1997). To exclude these from this sample would
be to impose a definition of the eurogame before
embarking on the analysis — a somewhat spe-
cious approach.
2. With apologies to Damon Knight!
3. Examples of this are card games such as
Bohnanza (Rosenberg, 1997), Bang! (Sciarra,
2002) and Race for the Galaxy (Lehmann, 2007).
4. For example, Ra (Knizia, 1999a) and the
central board of Agricola (Rosenberg, 2007).
5. For example, card placement in Lost
Cities (Knizia, 1997b) and Blue Moon (Knizia,
2004c).
6. For example, El Grande (Kramer and Ul-
rich, 1995) and Rheinländer (Knizia, 1999b).
7. For example, Goldbrau (Delonge, 2004)
and Mall World (Meyer, 2004).
8. For example, Carcassonne and Gheos
(Wiersma, 2006).
9. For example, Goa (Dorn, 2004) and
Wasabi (Cappel, 2008).
10. For example, Franz Vohwinkel, Doris
Matthaus and Michael Menzel.
11. Perhaps the most humorous example of
this attention to detail is found in Richard Berg’s
The Campaign for North Africa (1978), in which
the Italian troops require additional water in
order that they may enjoy pasta.
12. Those familiar with eurogames will rec-
ognize that I have chosen a title where the em-
phasis on restricted choice is most transparent.
Still, as I have identified, this type of choice-dri-
ven play is extremely prevalent throughout the
genre. Tikal is used here precisely because the
mechanic is so explicitly realized.
13. The bidding mechanic is only utilized in
the advanced “auction version” of the game.
14. Marcel-André Casasola Merkle’s Verräter
(Casasola Merkle, 1998) and Phillipe Keyaert’s
Vinci (Keyaerts, 1999).
15. Richard Morgan’s Chess and Checkers-de-
rived abstract strategy game La-Trel (Morgan,
1994).
16. See, for example, Euphrat & Tigris (Knizia,
1997a).
17. For example, hobbyists refer to Reiner
Knizia’s Euphrat & Tigris (1997a), Samurai
(1998b) and Durch die Wüste (1998a) as a tile-
placement trilogy, though the latter does not in-
volve the placement of tiles during the game but
three-dimensional camel-shaped tokens.
18. A similar limitation is seen in Richard
Breese’s Key Harvest (2007).
19. This is a common mechanic in connection
games, such as Linie Eins (Dorra, 1995), Tsuro
(McMurchie, 2005) and any number of trans-
port-themed games.
20. For example, Zooloretto (Schacht, 2007)
and Agricola (Rosenberg, 2007).
21. For example, Alhambra (Henn, 2003).
22. While gaming writer Shannon Appelcline
has argued that most game mechanics can be ab-
stracted to a form of auction (2005), I shall limit
here the description of auctions to the more trans-
parent implementation of bidding mechanics.
23. For example, Modern Art (Knizia, 1992a),
High Society (Knizia, 1995a) and For Sale (Dorra,
1997).
24. For example, Age of Steam (Wallace,
2002) and Power Grid (Friese, 2004).
25. For example, Ra (Knizia, 1999a) and Die
Fürsten von Florenz (Kramer and Ulrich, 2000).
26. For example, Wildlife (Kramer, 2002)
and Modern Art (Knizia, 1992a).
27. For example, Age of Steam (Wallace,
2002) and Löwenherz (Teuber, 1998).
28. For example, Die Macher (Schmeil,
1986), Serenissima (Ehrhard and Vitale, 1996)
and Indonesia (Doumen and Wiersinga, 2005).
29. For example, New England (Weissblum
and Moon, 2003) and El Grande (Kramer and
Ulrich, 1995).
30. For example, Vom Kap bis Cairo
(Burkhardt, 2001) and New England.
31. For example, High Society (Knizia, 1995a)
and Geschenkt (Gimmler, 2004).
32. Designer Shannon Appelcline refers to
this variation on the English auction as “Turn-
Based Continuous Bidding” (2004).
33. For example, Medici (Knizia, 1995b) and
Industria (Schacht, 2003b).
34. A somewhat uncharacteristic reliance on
technology for a eurogame.
35. Referred to by hobbyists as “downtime.”
36. Die Siedler von Catan is a good example
of this, with runaway leaders typically encoun-
tering difficulty in performing trades that would
benefit them.
37. For example, Die Siedler von Catan and
Antike (Gerdts, 2005).
38. For example, Roads and Boats and Caylus.
39. For example, Union Pacific (Moon, 1999)
and Stephenson’s Rocket (Knizia, 1999c).
40. For example, Imperial (Gerdts, 2006) and
Goldbräu (Delonge, 2004).
41. For example, Andreas Seyfarth’s Manhat-
tan (1994) incorporates an area control element.
42. Although simultaneous action selection
is also a common mechanic in eurogames. See,
for example, Raja: Palastbau in Indien (Kiesling
and Kramer, 2004), 6-Nimmt! (Kramer, 1994),
Diamant (Moon and Faidutti, 2005) and Pi-
ratenbucht (Randles and Stahl, 2002).
43. Wargames commonly cast players in asym-
metrical roles from the outset of the game, while
role-playing is founded upon the notion of players
occupying separate and distinct character roles.
44. Interestingly, as noted earlier, this was
also one of the few early eurogames to involve
direct conflict.
 Notes — Chapter 5
45. Kramer and Ulrich’s earlier El Grande em-
ploys a very similar mechanic, although the action
cards are not tied to specific phases of the turn.
46. Acknowledging the derivation, Faidutti
writes on his website: “I am indebted to that old
teenager, Marcel-André Casasola Merkle, for
taking from Verrater the character system of my
game Citadels. I had most of the building sys-
tem, the scoring system, some character effects,
but I did not know how to distribute the char-
acters among the players in a tactical way while
allowing some bluffing with it. Then I read the
rules of Verrater [sic]— even before playing the
game — and I directly moved the character
choosing system from his game to mine” (n.d.).
47. In Puerto Rico players select a role on their
turn that is then used by all players, but with the
selector receiving an additional privilege. The role
is then unavailable for the remainder of the round.
48. Splotter Spellen’s Bus (Doumen and
Wiersinga, 1999a) and Martin Wallace’s Way
Out West (2000) can also be considered early ex-
amples of this mechanic.
49. Breese employed the worker placement
mechanic in a purer form in his later game
Keythedral (2002).
50. Games scholar Jesper Juul explicitly fore-
grounds the player relationship to the over-arch-
ing goal by arguing that player movement to-
wards the goal is reinforced by an emotional
attachment to the game outcome, an assertion I
shall discuss in greater detail in a later chapter.
51. Translated as “the Kramer track,” it was
first implemented by Wolfgang Kramer in Das
Große Unternehmen Erdgas (1982).
52. In both of these cases, auctions.
53. Or, more accurately, narrativist (Frasca,
2003).
54. See Cameron, 1995; Murray, 1997; Frasca,
1999; Finn, 2000; Eskelinen, 2001; Frasca, 2001a;
Juul, 2001a; Juul, 2001b; Carlquist, 2002; Jenk-
ins, 2002a; Atkins, 2003; Frasca, 2003; Eskeli-
nen, 2004; Murray, 2005; Pearce, 2005; Brown,
2007; Stern and Mateas, 2007, among many
others, for the details of this debate.
55. I am aware that Eskelinen has critiqued
scholars for taking these words out of context in
the past (Eskelinen, 2005). To the extent that
he clarifies his position, I agree with Eskelinen
that the study of theme or narrative has little to
offer in terms of understanding the nature of
games as a “different transmedial mode and cul-
tural genre of expression and communication
than stories.” However, as thematic elements in
eurogames are marketing tools, they are more
than worthy of exploration here.
56. As a concrete example, role-playing games
are, without exception, built upon the notion of
narrative and thematic immersion. It is the
theme and story of these games, the “collective
225
creation of fantasy” (Fine, 1983, p. 230), that
provides one of the keys to their attraction. Al-
though many examples could be reduced to the
level of abstract die rolling, this compelling el-
ement would be lost in the process.
57. Although, as mentioned earlier, the qual-
ity of graphic design within eurogames is notably
high, designer Mike Doyle has criticized the
genre for its somewhat formulaic approach to box
design: “There has been, for many generations,
a general formula for creating box covers that ba-
sically has not changed. With the themed Euro-
style games, for example, you will find a big, il-
lustrated image, usually depicting an event
related to the theme, the big game name on top
and the publisher’s logo on bottom — usually on
the right hand corner. Illustration styles can vary
and often will depict a period look.... So why do
I think this formula needs rethinking? With the
new generation of gaming at hand, the visual lan-
guage remains identical to its predecessors — it
does not communicate that something new is
happening here” (Doyle in Bretsch, 2005).
58. The graphic design of the game is by
Franz Vohwinkel.
59. Aleknevicus is speaking here with a degree
of levity, but the criticism is nevertheless valid.
60. Despite this observation, Knizia has
claimed repeatedly that theme is an important
element in his designs: “The theme, mechanics
and the materials in the game must work as one
unit and if they don’t gel together I think the
game is not complete. Sometimes people say that
my games are a bit abstract. I’m a more scientific
man. My approach is that the game should have
very simple rules and depth of play comes out
of these simple and unified rules. There may be
a lot of details, but usually I have a good the-
matic reason for these additions” (Knizia in
Batty, 2006a). See also Glenn, 2002; and Knizia,
2004b.
61. While some of these changes are relatively
minimal (see, for example, Ave Caesar [Riedesser,
1999], a chariot racing game rethemed as space-
ship racing in Q-Jet 21ZXX [Riedesser, 2005] for
the Japanese market), others are a complete re-
working of the theme (for example, Queen’s
retheming of Dirk Henn’s game of theater man-
agement, Show Manager [1996], to one of ocean
cruises in Atlantic Star [2001]).
62. For the purposes of this analysis, histor-
ical periods have been broken down into pre-
historic, ancient, middle ages, early modern and
modern. Importantly in the case of games iden-
tified as being themed within the Middle Ages,
this does not refer to a specific location (i.e. Eu-
rope) that is typically associated with the term,
merely to a time period (Approximately 400 A.D.
to 1500 A.D.). Thus a game such as Raja (Kies-
ling and Kramer, 2004), although taking place
226 NOTES — CHAPTER 6
in India, is categorized according to the time pe-
riod in which the game is set.
63. Although this is typically not the classic
Tolkien-inspired fantasy that dominates Anglo-
American designs, but rather a generic medieval
setting with fantastic elements — for example,
Ohne Furcht und Adel, Das Amulett (Weissblum
and Moon, 2001) or, in the case of Die Siedler
von Catan, a fictional historical setting.
64. German writer Morritz Eggert attributes
the rarity of science fiction as a game theme in
Germany to cultural memories of the way the
Nazi regime “defined itself in a kind of futuristic
aesthetic” (Eggert, 2005).
65. In the case of 6 Nimmt! and Hol’s der
Geier, these games use plays on German collo-
quialisms to locate the theme. The presence of
oxen in 6 Nimmt! is a play on the common pe-
jorative term hornochsen. The expression Hol’s
der Geier is an exclamation in German, with the
word geier also referring to the vultures featured
on the game’s cards. In Coloretto the employ-
ment of chameleons is a reference to the goal of
the game — collecting different colored cards.
66. Two games, Kahuna (Cornett, 1998) and
Alles im Eimer (Dorra, 2002), simultaneously en-
courage the player to build and destroy the ac-
complishments of other players. Kahuna adopts a
fantasy theme, with players competing through
the use of magic, while the theme of Alles im Einer
casts players as children in a friendly competition
set in a farmyard. In both cases it is buildings,
rather than people or animals, which are the tar-
gets of the destruction. Both Verräter and David
& Goliath (Staupe, 1998) explicitly task players
with fighting, though the relationship between the
thematic and functional goals in the latter is ex-
tremely tenuous, David & Goliath being a varia-
tion on a traditional trick-taking card game. Only
one game, notably a French design, has the the-
matic goal of conquering—Condottiere (Ehrhard
and Vitale, 1995). Finally, Die Werwölfe von
Düsterwald (Davidoff et al., 2001), which falls
under the umbrella of this analysis due to its ap-
pearance on the Spiel des Jahres shortlist, is a com-
mercial version of Dimma Davidoff ’s party game
Mafia that includes player elimination.
67. A number of eurogames do employ si-
multaneous actions, however; for example, Adel
Verpflichtet and Wallenstein (Henn, 2002).
68. Referred to in game theory as payoffs.
69. Following the initial set-up of the board,
Caylus can be considered a game of perfect in-
formation, as can Packeis am Pol ( Jakeliunas and
Cornett, 2003) and Age of Steam (Wallace, 2002).
70. For example, Attika (Casasola Merkle,
2003), Elfenland and Notre Dame (Feld, 2007b).
71. For example, Goa, Amon Ra (Knizia, 2003)
and Sankt Petersburg (Brunnhofer and Tummel-
hofer, 2004).
72. For example, Ra, Lost Valley and Euphrat
& Tigris.
73. For example, Die Siedler von Catan and
Piratenbucht (Randles and Stahl, 2002).
74. For example, Ticket to Ride and Elfen-
land.
75. For example, Snakes and Ladders and
Candyland.
76. Beginning in approximately 2005, dice
began to appear far more commonly in eu-
rogames — for example in Um Krone und Kragen
(Lehmann, 2006), Yspahan (Pauchon, 2006),
Königsburg (Chiarvesio and Iennaco, 2007)
and Giganten der Lüfte (Seyfarth, 2007). More
recently, publishers have begun releasing dice-
based games that leverage the familiarity of al-
ready popular franchises — for example, Alham-
bra — Das Würfelspiel (Henn, 2006), Die Siedler
von Catan: Das Würfelspiel (Teuber, 2007b) and
Ra: The Dice Game (Knizia, 2009b).
77. Naturally there are many counter-exam-
ples in early hobby games, but the generalization
stands.
78. Even if this is a position that some hobby
gamers might argue.
79. For example, Euphrat & Tigris, Sankt Pe-
tersburg and Funkenschlag (Second Edition) (Friese,
2004).
80. For example, Piratenbucht (Randles and
Stahl, 2002), Die Siedler von Catan and Ticket
to Ride.
81. For example, Zooloretto and Agricola.
82. Variations on this system can be seen in
a wide variety of games, including Hase und
Ingel, Adel Verpflichtet, Ursuppe (Matthäus and
Nestel, 1997), Torres and Das Zepter von Zavan-
dor (Drögemüller, 2004), among others.
83. Stepak vs. Mashian, Israel Championship
Semifinals, 1980. See Krabbé, 2009.
84. In both cases, twelve rounds.
85. Other examples that use this technique
include El Grande, Piratenbucht (Randles and
Stahl, 2002), Notre Dame (Feld, 2007b), Agri-
cola and Yspahan (Pauchon, 2006).
86. For example, Tikal, Euphrat & Tigris,
Ticket to Ride and Puerto Rico.
87. See Faidutti, 2006, for examples.
Chapter 6
1. In the USA and U.K., the top 4,000.
2. The data regarding marital status was
drawn from an informal poll conducted by user
LankyEngineer in 2008. This data is based on
2256 respondents as of January 2010 (LankyEngi-
neer, 2008b).
3. Based on 2957 responses as of February
20, 2009.
4. For example, although data on gaming in
 Notes — Chapter 6
the general population is closely guarded by the
industry, a 2000 report by Wizards of the Coast
indicates that approximately 3 percent of the
population play role-playing games at least once
a month, compared with 16 percent in this sur-
vey (Dancey, 2000).
5. National gaming conventions such as
Origins and Gencon offer players the possibility
of participating in tournament play and/or set
aside areas for open gaming, as do smaller local
conventions. Usually attended by industry pro-
fessionals and the general public, the larger con-
ventions serve as a way for companies to reach
their target audience, demonstrate upcoming re-
leases and organize tournaments to bolster
awareness of particular games. Typically, larger
conventions cover all aspects of the broader gam-
ing culture, while smaller local conventions are
generally genre specific. Of the two U.S. na-
tional conventions, Origins is anecdotally con-
sidered a more gamer-focused event due to the
greater opportunities for casual/open gaming,
while Gencon is perceived as a larger, more in-
dustry-focused event at which many companies
debut new titles. Both feature organized tour-
nament play. Local conventions are numerous
in the U.S., with most organized by regional
gaming clubs.
Tournaments on a large scale occur at the
World Boardgaming Championships in Lan-
caster, Pennsylvania, an event specifically dedi-
cated to board games (“Boardgame Players As-
sociation,” 2009). Organized by the non-profit
Boardgame Players Association, the WBC re-
placed Avalon Hill’s dedicated convention in
1999 and continues to draw audiences of around
1300 players each year. As with the broader
board gaming hobby, the shift towards Euro-
pean-style games has been considerable since the
inception of the convention. Further reflecting
this shift, since 2001 the Boardgame Players As-
sociation, along with the Games Club of Mary-
land, has been organizing Euroquest, a conven-
tion specifically dedicated to European-style
games that includes tournament events linked
to the WBC.
6. Fine cites two 1978 surveys, one from the
Judges Guild Journal which found that 2.3 per-
cent of players of RPGs were female, and an-
other in Metagaming’s The Space Gamer in
which only 0.4 percent of respondents were fe-
male.
7. Eighty-three percent of respondents were
under 35, and only 40 percent had been mar-
ried.
8. The survey covers players of role-playing
games, wargames and collectible card games.
9. In 2004, Deppey reports that the average
age of a comic book reader is 34 years.
10. Fine notes that, of gamers over 21, 51 per-
227
cent had achieved more than undergraduate ed-
ucation.
11. Although Bordenet’s survey indicates that
only 11 percent of participants have completed
an undergraduate degree, the age group surveyed
is significantly lower. When taking into account
those respondents who have completed “some
college,” the figure rises to 51 percent. Given the
age range identified in his survey (38 percent are
under 25), it is safe to assume that a sizeable
proportion of these respondents were engaged
in study at the time of the survey.
12. The reference here to “slans” is a notable
one. Within Science Fiction fandom, the notion
of slans is used to identify a particular type of
fan, or at least the attitude of a specific subset,
who have subverted the perceived marginaliza-
tion of their interests to the point where they see
themselves as belonging to a community that
“possess[es] a truth which is denied to outsiders”
( James, 1994, p. 135). The idea that gamers are
also in possession of a truth that might benefit
the broader culture is a topic I explore later in
this chapter.
13. It is also likely that the communities over-
lap. Certainly my local gaming group, the West
Australian Boardgaming Association, shows sig-
nificant overlap with West Australian science fic-
tion fandom.
14. Again, the comparison with fans, who
Bruner and Thorne describe as “focus[ing] their
time energy and resources intently on a specific
area of interest,” is unavoidable (2006, p. 53).
15. As of August 2011, only one of the top 100
games on boardgamegeek is produced by a main-
stream manufacturer — this being Hasbro’s
reprint of Sid Sackson’s Acquire. There have been
several exceptions to this general dismissal of
mainstream games. Interestingly, the two most
notable have come from the area of dexterity
games. Loopin Louie (Wiselely, 1992) is a chil-
dren’s dexterity game manufactured by Milton
Bradley that was awarded the Kinderspiele des
Jahres in 1994. The game experienced a boost in
popularity among gamers after being played
heavily at Alan Moon’s Gathering of Friends
events in the late 1990s. In 2008 the mass-mar-
ket Sorry Sliders! (Van Ness, 2008) received sim-
ilar attention as a substitute for the well-regarded
but expensive public domain game Crokinole.
16. See, in particular, Bordieu, 1979.
17. Based on 137 responses as of January 10,
2010.
18. The use of this way of measuring the value
of games has been taken up by other members
of the hobby in the form of “five and dime lists.”
In the transition, however, the original purpose
has been largely forgotten, and such lists are now
seen as an indicator of the popularity of specific
games over time. See Jackson, 2006.
228 NOTES — CHAPTER 7
19. For examples, see threads Estimating CCP
(Cost Per Play) of my collection (Kobra1, 2005),
How many plays should we expect out of a game?
( Jome, 2008) and Boardgames: Higher Entertain-
ment Value Than You Thought! (flabber23, 2007).
20. Based on 2834 respondents as of January
9, 2009.
21. Based on 421 responses as of January 10,
2010. The phenomenon of the “unplayed game”
has led Australian user John Farrell to establish
a supplementary site where player statistics from
BGG are analyzed to determine, among other
things, a “Friendless metric” which indicates how
much of a collection is played with any regular-
ity (2009).
22. For example, Alea produces three series
of numbered games: big, medium and small box,
most of which have been reprinted in English by
Rio Grande Games. However, since English lan-
guage versions of Chinatown and Adel Verpflichtet
were not produced, original German versions of
these titles are sought after by collectors. The re-
cent “Bookshelf Series” of titles released by
Gryphon Games also employs numbering.
23. Although this is probably due in most
cases to economic convenience, publishers ar-
guably leverage this similarity in creating “lines,”
such as the Kosmos 2-Player line. Clearly, the
use of similar presentation establishes coherency
in a company’s product range, with the percep-
tion of groups as a “set” a fortunate side-effect.
24. Reflecting the gendered nature of the
hobby, such spaces have been referred to as “man-
caves.”
25. “Pr0n” being Internet slang for pornog-
raphy, a term originally used on usenet groups
as a way to bypass language filters.
26. Fiske is here writing before the advent of
the World Wide Web. While his comments re-
main true in principle, the potential for fan-cre-
ated texts to reach an audience outside of the
community is greatly increased.
27. As an example, the English version of the
fantasy-themed adventure game Die Rückkehr
der Helden (Stepponat, 2003) suffers from a
ruleset that is written as an ongoing discussion
between the player characters in the game. De-
spite being extremely humorous, it is generally
considered a failure in terms of rule clarity. User
Christopher Young has rewritten the entire rule-
set in a way that makes the game far more ac-
cessible (Young, 2007). In an example of the
value of this feedback loop, designer Lutz Step-
ponat has since suggested that discussions on the
website have informed his decision to rewrite
the rules in an upcoming edition (Stepponat,
2008).
28. See, for example Carcassonne: The Well and
the Donkey (Exit191, 2006b), Carcassonne: Dragon
Riders and Slayers (Exit191, 2006a), Carcassonne:
Fruit Trader (Wu, 2005), and Carcassonne: Treas-
ure Hunt (Wu, 2008).
29. The original version of the game posi-
tions the players as the heads of feuding Scottish
clans.
30. Exemplar of this level of commitment
is Karim Chakroun’s redesign of Richard
Hamblen’s fantasy game Magic Realm (1978), a
project that required over 300 hours of work
(Chakroun, 2009).
31. Designers Andrea Angiolino, Bruno
Faidutti, Friedemann Friese, Richard Breese,
William Attia, Jeroen Doumen, Martin Wallace,
Marcel-André Casasola Merkle, Kevin Wilson,
Bruno Cathala and Lewis Pulsipher, among
many others, are contributors to the site.
32. For example, in 2009 designer Rüdiger
Dorn actively enrolled site members in discussing
changes prior to the re-release of his game Goa
(Dorn, 2009). Similarly, one of the designers of
Avalon Hill’s Betrayal at House on the Hill (Mc-
Quillan et al., 2004), Bruce Glassco, solicited
input and ideas from hobbyists for inclusion in
the second edition of the game (Glassco, 2009).
33. For example, the German-to-English
translation of Uwe Rosenberg’s Agricola was ini-
tially undertaken by Australian boardgamegeek
member Melissa Rogerson due to hobbyist in-
terest in the German version. The English ver-
sion of the game produced by Z-Man utilized
Rogerson’s translation. Rogerson subsequently
worked on the translation of Rosenberg’s next
game, Le Havre (Rosenberg, 2008).
34. Pope, 2006.
35. Designed by Yehuda Berlinger, another
example of a hobbyist turned designer (Berlinger,
2007).
36. Pope and Cheatham, 2008.
37. A geeklist is a function of the site that al-
lows users to list a series of games with com-
mentary after each. Although initially conceived
as a way to group games with something in com-
mon, the feature has subsequently been utilized
by users in a myriad of creative ways. Geeklists
have become a central feature of the site, oper-
ating as a facility for community building and
the development of cultural capital.
38. In another intertextual reference, the cur-
rency employed in the game is Florins, a partic-
ularly ubiquitous currency in eurogames.
39. “These Games of Ours”— a now rarely
used acronym dating from an early discussion
on rec.games.board of an alternate name for Ger-
man-style games.
Chapter 7
1. For example, evolutionist and political
theorist Herbert Spencer saw play as a method
 Notes — Chapter 7
of using up excess energy and directing that en-
ergy towards activities that were of particular in-
terest to the individual (Spencer, 1855). Another
proponent of this idea, German poet Friedrich
Schiller, saw the function of play as lying in the
balance drawn between the rational and spiritual
instincts, claiming that “the double action of the
two ... instincts, will content the mind at once
morally and physically” (1954). In contrast, the
“relaxation” or “recreation” theory proposed by
Moritz Lazarus and George Patrick suggests that
the function of play is primarily a restorative one
(Lazarus, 1883; Patrick, 1916).
2. For example, Karl Groos’ instrumentalist
theory proposes that play constitutes a child’s
way of preparing for adult life (1898; 1901). In-
deed, a number of early psychological theorists
view child’s play as a recapitulation of cultural
development that allows the child to “play out”
the steps in the evolution of mores (Wundt,
1902; Hall, 1906). More recently, social psychol-
ogist Kurt Lewin interprets play as being reflec-
tive of the unstructured state of the infant mind,
flitting between the real and unreal (Sutton-
Smith and Herron, 1971). Similarly, Frederick
Buytendijik suggests that due to this incoherent
cognitive and emotional state, play is the only
activity of which a child is capable (Helms and
Turner, 1981). Psychoanalytic theory tends to
focus on the fantasy element of play in the
growth of the human psyche. Anna and Sig-
mund Freud propose that play allows the child
to express negative emotions over problems
which she is unable to exert control in real life
(Freud, 1959; Freud, 1968).
3. Most famously, Jean Piaget’s theory of cog-
nitive development identifies a series of devel-
opmental stages through which children pass se-
quentially, progressing through play which
emphasizes sensorimotor, preoperational, con-
crete operational and formal operational thought
processes. In each of these stages the child is said
to develop new knowledge through a state of
cognitive disequilibrium that must be brought
into balance through accommodation (attempt-
ing to imitate and physically interact with the
environment) and assimilation (attempting to
integrate external precepts or actions) (Gruber
and Voneche, 1977).
4. For example, Lev Vygotsky places a strong
emphasis on the interpersonal nature of learning
and the way in which understandings are devel-
oped through the use of symbolic tools such as
language (Crawford, 1996). For Vygotsky, forms
of play are not primarily determined by any in-
nate factor but are reflective of the individuals,
social institutions and culture in whose proxim-
ity the child develops (Vygotsky, 1962; Goldfarb,
2001). Of particular interest are Vygotsky’s ob-
servations on the way in which children self reg-
229
ulate in play activities. As an example, a child
involved in a running race resists the urge to
begin before the agreed moment in order to ex-
perience the pleasure of social play. In this way,
the rules of play become the strongest impulse;
“to carry out the rule is a source of pleasure”
(Vygotsky, 1976, p. 549).
5. Reflecting the complexity of this ques-
tion, researchers have also identified control
(Barnett et al., 1997; Grodal, 2000; Vorderer,
2000; Newman, 2002), competition (Vorderer
et al., 2003), escapism (Barnett et al., 1997), so-
ciality ( Jansz and Martens, 2005), self-efficacy
(Klimmt and Hartmann, 2006), identification
with a player character (Hefner et al., 2007) and
suspense (Klimmt et al., 2009) as other potential
sources of pleasure for players in different forms
of games.
6. Although the issue of time commitment
that Juul describes is not so constraining as it is
in video games — which can take days of a
player’s life to complete — I have already iden-
tified how game length effects general gaming
preferences among hobbyists.
7. The categories originally included in the
survey were “Do Not Enjoy,” “Rarely Enjoy,”
“Usually Enjoy” and “Always Enjoy.”
8. Variable phase order is a term that refers
to games where each turn may have a different
order. Although not, strictly speaking, a “me-
chanic,” it typically stems from the use of me-
chanics, such as role selection and worker place-
ment.
9. Hand management is a commonly used
mechanic in eurogames; however, it is also pres-
ent in many American hobby games and, of
course, collectible card games.
10. Ninety-six percent of respondents indi-
cate that replayability is either very important
(67 percent) or quite important (29 percent).
11. Exceptions exist in the case of “speed-
runs” (Lowood, 2005) and games that offer mul-
tiple endings, but the generalization holds.
12. Although some board games do have ele-
ments of progression in them (e.g., Tales of the
Arabian Nights [Goldberg, 1985]), most are
largely emergent. Juul suggests that multiplayer
board games are the purest examples of this
game form (2005, p. 71).
13. Although some of the ideas discussed in
this section were originally presented in my ar-
ticle “Playing with an Other: Ethics in the Magic
Circle” (2007), these thoughts were subse-
quently crystallized through reading designer
Lewis Pulsipher’s blog post “The system and the
psychological in games” (2009b).
14. Eighty-six percent of respondents cite di-
rect interaction as either quite important (48
percent) or very important (37 percent) in their
enjoyment. Eighty percent consider indirect in-
230 NOTES — CHAPTERS 8, 9, 10
teraction either quite important (62 percent) or
very important (18 percent).
15. Only 45 percent of respondents indicated
that the presence of direct conflict was either
very important (9 percent) or quite important
(36 percent) to their enjoyment of a game.
16. While early eurogames were highly inter-
active, as Michael Barnes notes, games such as
Puerto Rico, Die Fürsten von Florenz and Goa
ushered in the style of games that are commonly
perceived as having very little interaction
(2008a). Notably, these titles are at the more
complex end of the spectrum of eurogame ti-
tles.
17. Aleknevicus cites the American game Set
(Falco, 1991), Alex Randolph’s Rasende Roboter
(1999), Bruno Faidutti’s Bongo (2000a) and the
English-designed Take It Easy (Burley, 1983) as
examples of true multi-player solitaire. To these
titles can be added similar games such as Splotter
Spellen’s Oraklos (Wiersinga and Jannink,
2002), Friedemann Friese’s Turbo Taxi (2000)
and the more recent Reiner Knizia game Fits
(2009a). All of these titles can be more accu-
rately described as puzzles that are simultane-
ously completed by several people. Moreover,
many require pattern recognition on the part of
players, a mechanic that was not well regarded
by survey respondents.
18. See, for example, Haddon, 1981; Craw-
ford, 1982; Zagal, 2000; Costikyan, 2002; and
Björk and Holopainen, 2003.
19. Indeed, although Gingold’s thesis deals
almost entirely with video games, he explicitly
cites the board game Go as an example of a
“miniature garden” (Gingold, 2003, p. 7).
20. In a mathematical sense the term chaos
describes “stochastic behavior occurring in a de-
terministic system,” where stochastic refers to a
probabilistic distribution that can be analyzed
but not predicted precisely. In effect, the behav-
ior is random (Stewart, 1989, p. 17). Setting aside
the apparent contradiction of random events oc-
curring in deterministic systems, the way the
term chaos is used by hobbyists aligns very
closely with this definition.
21. Responses to this question were analyzed
in a method akin to that used in a grounded
theoretical approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;
Martin and Turner, 1986)— that is, key themes
and concepts that were mentioned in player re-
sponses were assigned codes that revealed ele-
ments that players considered important.
22. In discussing games that are not played
face-to-face, Goffman refers to examples such
as Hide-and-Seek, “war exercises” and games
such as Chess that can be played via mail (Goff-
man, 1961, p. 36).
23. Pleasure derived from the misfortune of
others.
Chapter 8
1. The rules governing the winning condi-
tion have been variously termed the “ludus” rules
(Frasca, 2001b, p. 9), the “evaluation” rules (Egen-
feldt-Nelson et al., 2008) and the “outcome val-
orization” rules by video game scholars.
2. Heide Smith identifies the “susceptible
player,” most commonly assumed in effects-based
research, and the “selective player,” which has
been used to predict media choices (p. 257).
3. For example, Crawford, 1982; Costikyan,
1994; and Koster, 2005.
4. FIFA Soccer 2004 (2003), Champions
of Norrath (2004), Mashed: Drive to Survive
(2004).
5. Examples of studies drawing on this
model include those focusing on player activities
within MUDs and MMORPGs (Bartle, 1996;
Mortensen, 2003; Steinkuehler, 2005; Pearce,
2006; Taylor, 2006), other online multiplayer
games (Manninen, 2001; Boria et al., 2002), and
those that examine disruptive practices (Foo
and Koivisto, 2004; Kücklich, 2004; Consalvo,
2005a).
6. Party games were the most commonly
cited examples here.
7. More specifically, the term is commonly
used to describe gambling or video game play.
8. Hughes’ study of the children’s game Four
Square is a detailed examination of this process
(1983; 1988; 1989).
9. These being enjoyment as motivation,
enjoyment as expected effect, enjoyment as ter-
minal goal, enjoyment as sub-goal and enjoy-
ment as function (Paglieri, 2003a).
Chapter 9
1. A secondary theme that emerges is that of
inattentiveness that can distract from focus upon
the game or interrupt the proper flow (e.g., pre-
mature resignation, a lack of attention, slow play
and inappropriate breaks). Since this topic offers
a similar distraction from the focus of this chap-
ter, I set it aside as only tangentially related to
the act of play.
Chapter 10
1. While the valorization of formal tourna-
ments often provides an impetus for this activity,
the nature of such tournaments is that they pro-
vide the “collective affirmation of a room full of
people engaged in playful unison” (Lenarcic and
Scolley, 2005, p. 71) in a very similar way to the
eurogames described here.
 Bibliography
Aarseth, E. Playing Research: Methodological Ap-
proaches to Game Analysis. Paper presented at
the Digital Arts & Culture Conference, Mel-
bourne, 2003.
_____. Genre Trouble: Narrativism and the Art
of Simulation. In First Person: New Media as
Story, Performance and Game, edited by N.
Wardrip-Fruin and P. Harrigan, 45–49).
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004.
_____. I Fought the Law: Transgressive Play and
The Implied Player. In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2007 Conference — Situated Play,
130–133. Tokyo, 2007.
Abbott, E. Candyland [Board Game]. Milton
Bradley, 1949.
Abbott, R. Epaminondas [Board Game]. Ariel/
Philmar, 1975.
Academy of Adventure Gaming, Arts and De-
sign, 2008. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from
http://www.originsgamefair.com/aagad/.
Achilli, J., T. Avers, A. Bates, K. Blackwelder, P.
Boulle, C. Bowen, et al. Mummy: The Resur-
rection [Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf,
2001.
Alden, S. The Aldie Show #008: Interview with
Friedemann Friese [Podcast], Boardgamegeek.
com, 2008.
Alden, S., and D. Solko. Boardgamespeak — In-
terview with Rick Thornquist and Greg
Schloesser [Podcast], Boardgamegeek.com,
2004a.
_____. Boardgamespeak — Aldie and Derk
Interview [Podcast], Boardgamegeek.com,
2004b.
_____. Boardgamespeak — Interview with Jay
Tummelson [Podcast], Boardgamegeek.com,
2005.
_____. Geekspeak 2.0: Interview with Reiner
Knizia Part One [Podcast], Boardgamegeek.
com, 2009a.
_____. Geekspeak 2.0: Interview with Gordon
Calleja Part One [Podcast], Boardgamegeek.
com, 2009b.
231
Aldis, O. Play Fighting. New York: Academic
Press, 1975.
Aleknevicus, G. Hippodice Game Competition.
The Games Journal 2007, from http://www.the
gamesjournal.com/articles/Hippodice.shtml,
2001a.
_____. “Specialize! Diversify! Counter 15 (2001b):
20–24.
_____. “Player Interaction in Games.” Counter
16 (2002): 16–22.
_____. “German Games Are Fraudulent.” Re-
trieved August 14, 2008, from http://www.the
gamesjournal.com/articles/Fraudulent.shtml,
2004.
_____. Email Interview, 2008.
Alexander, W., and R. Tait. Cranium [Board
Game]. Cranium Inc., 1998.
Alvaro, G. “Re: My Confession: Some Bother-
some Things I’ve Realized About My Ap-
proach to the Gaming Hobby.” Retrieved
February 15, 2009, from http://www.boardga
megeek.com/article/2198693#2198693, 2008.
Aminzadah, S. M. “Some Reasons Behind the
Success of ‘The Settlers of Catan’: What
Makes This Contemporary Board Game so
Attractive to Players?” Paper presented at the
Board Game Studies Colloquia VII, Philadel-
phia, 2004.
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections
on The Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Lon-
don: Verso, 1983.
Andre, K. S. Tunnels and Trolls [Role-playing
Game]. Flying Buffalo, 1975.
Angel, R. Pictionary [Board Game]. Parker Broth-
ers, 1985.
Anspach, R. The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swin-
dle. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2000.
Appelcline, S. “Trials, Triumphs & Trivialities
#112: Designing Strategy: Hidden Informa-
tion.” Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://
www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_112.shtml,
2003.
_____. “Trials, Triumphs & Trivialities #144:
232 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Strategic Insights: Auction Games.” Retrieved
May 9, 2009, from http://www.skotos.net/ar
ticles/TTnT_144.phtml, 2004.
_____. “Trials, Triumphs & Trivialities #161:
Designing Strategy: The Auction Grand
Unification Theory.” Retrieved March 23,
2008, from http://www.skotos.net/articles/
TTnT_161.phtml, 2005a.
_____. “Trials, Triumphs & Trivialities #162:
Strategic Insights: Majority Control.” Re-
trieved April 15th, 2008, from http://www.sk
otos.net/articles/TTnT_/TTnT_162.phtml,
2005b.
_____. “Professor of Chaos.” Knucklebones (No-
vember 2006): 16–19.
_____. “A Brief History of Game #1: Wizards of
the Coast.” Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://
www.rpg.net/columns/brief history/brief his
tory1.phtml, 2006b.
_____. “A Brief History of Game #11: White
Wolf, Part One, 1986–1995.” Retrieved April
2, 2008, from http://www.rpg.net/columns/
briefhistory/briefhistory11.phtml, 2007.
Armintrout, W. G. Hot Spot [Board Game].
Metagaming, 1979.
_____. Annihilator & One World [Board Game].
Metagaming, 1980.
Armstrong, A., and J. Hagel. “The Real Value
of On-Line Communities.” Harvard Business
Review (May–June 1996): 131–141.
Arneson, E. “Bruno Faidutti: Jeux sans Strate-
gie.” Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://bo
ardgames.about.com/library/weekly/aa08010
0a.htm, 2000.
Askew, F. Dimension Demons [Board Game].
Metagaming, 1981.
Atkins, B. More Than a Game: The Computer
Game as a Fictional Form. Manchester: Man-
chester University Press, 2003.
Attia, W. Caylus [Board Game]. Ystari, 2005.
The Avalon Hill General Index and Company His-
tory 1952 –1980, Volume 1–Volume 16. Balti-
more: Avalon Hill, 1980.
Baars, G. Labyrinth — Die Schatzjagd [Board
Game]. Ravensburger, 2005.
Babinsack, J. “By the Book.” Knucklebones (May
2007): pp. 22–26.
Barnes, M. “Re: A Tribute to Ameritrash.” Re-
trieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.
boardgamegeek .com/geeklist/16485?com
mentid=142850#comment142850, 2006.
_____. “Do Eurogames Hate Us for Our Free-
dom?” Retrieved December 4, 2009, from
http://www.gameshark.com/entertainment/fe
atures/525/Cracked-LCD-73-Always-Trust-
the-French.htm, 2008a.
_____. Email Interview, 2008b.
Barnett, M. A., G. D. Vitaglione, K. K. G.
Harper, S. W. Quackenbusch, L. A. Stead-
man, and B. S. Valdez. “Late Adolescents’ Ex-
periences with and Attitudes Toward
Videogames.” Journal of Applied Social Psy-
cholog y 27, no. 15 (1997): 1316–1334.
Bartl, A., A. Bernabe, and N. Grill. Karawane
[Board Game]. Ravensburger, 1990.
Bartle, R. “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades —
Players Who Suit MUDs.” Retrieved January
3, 2007, from http://www.mud.co.uk/richa
rd/hcds.htm, 1996.
Batty, W. Reiner Knizia by the Numbers. The
Game Table Retrieved March 17th, 2008,
from http://gametable.blogspot.com/2006/
04/reiner-knizia-by-numbers.html, 2006a.
_____. “The Life and Times of Alan R. Moon.”
Retrieved June 15, 2008, from http://www.bo
ardgamenews.com/index .php/boardgame
news/comments/the_life_times_of_alan_r_m
oon/, 2006.
Baudrillard, J. “The System of Collecting.” In
The Cultures of Collecting, edited by J. Elsner
and R. Cardinal, 7–24. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1994.
Bauer, E. B., and B. B. Smuts. “Role Reversal
and Self-Handicapping During Playfighting
in Domestic Dogs, Canis Familiaris.” Paper
presented at the Meetings of the Animal Be-
havior Society, Indiana University, Indiana,
2002.
Beattie, R. “The Courier Presents a Timeline of
the Historical Miniatures Wargaming
Hobby.” Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://
www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.
html, n.d.
Beattie, S. “Voicing the Shadow: Rule-Playing
and Roleplaying in Wraith: The Oblivion.
Law, Culture and the Humanities 3, no. 3
(2007): 477–492.
Beierer, C. Tal Der Könige [Board Game]. Kos-
mos, 1992.
Bekoff, M., and C. Allen. “Intentional Commu-
nication and Social Play: How and Why An-
imals Negotiate and Agree to Play.” In Animal
Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecologi-
cal Perspectives, edited by M. Bekoff and J. A.
Byers, 97–114. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, 1998.
Belk, R. W. Collecting in a Consumer Society.
London: Routledge, 1995.
Belk, R. W., and M. Wallendorf. “Of Mice and
Men: Gender Identity and Collecting.” In In-
terpreting Objects and Collections, edited by S.
M. Pearce, 240–253. London: Routledge,
1994.
Belk, R. W., M. Wallendorf, J. Sherry, M. Hol-
brook, and S. Roberts. “Collectors and Col-
lecting.” In Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 15, edited by M. J. Houston, 548–
553. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 1988.
Bell, J. B. “Toward a Theory of Deception.” In-
 Bibliography
ternational Journal of Intelligence and Coun-
terIntelligence 16, no. 2 (2003): 244–279.
Bell, R. C. Board and Table Games from Many
Civilizations. New York: Dover, 1979.
_____. Games to Play: Board and Table Games
for All the Family. London: Dunestyle, 1988.
Berg, R. H. Terrible Swift Sword [Board Game].
Simulations Publications Inc., 1976.
_____. Gondor [Board Game]. Simulations
Publications Inc., 1977.
_____. The Campaign For North Africa [Board
Game]. Simulations Publications Inc., 1978.
Berg, R. H., and H. Barasch, H. War of the Ring
[Board Game]. Simulations Publications Inc.,
1977.
Berger, T. U. Cultures of Antimilitarism: National
Security in Germany and Japan. Baltimore,
MA: John Hopkins University, 1998.
Bergman, M. Census Bureau Data Underscore
Value of College Degree. Retrieved January
12, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/education/007
660.html, 2006.
Berlinger, Y. It’s Alive! [Board Game]. Reiver
Games, 2007.
_____. “Games Are Art: ‘Eurogames’ Is an Art
Period.” Retrieved April 30, 2009, from
http://jergames.blogspot.com/2009/04/game
s-are- art-eurogames-is-art-period.html,
2009a.
_____. “The Modern Eurogame Revolution.”
Paper presented at the Board Game Studies
Colloquia XII, Jerusalem, 2009b.
Bermuda Triangle [Board Game]. Milton Bradley,
1976.
Bernett, H. Phlounder [Board Game]. 3M, 1962.
Beyer, D. “Re: Is There a Boardgaming Demo-
graphic?” Retrieved February 17, 2009, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/546
745#546745, 2005.
Beyer, D., R. Eifler, and S. Gross, S. Bootleggers
[Board Game]. Eagle Games, 2004.
“Big Game Hunter: The Search for the Next
Monopoly.” Retrieved January 9, 2010, from
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/big-
game-hunter-the-search-for-the-next-mo
nopoly-1813587.html, 2009.
Bistro, M. “Art vs. Craft and the Rise of the
Mongrel Aesthetic.” Retrieved February 21,
2009, from http://fortressat.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=882&I
temid=551, 2009.
Bisz, J. “The Birth of a Community, the Death
of the Win: Player Production of the Middle-
Earth Collectible Card Game. Transformative
Works and Cultures, 2. Retrieved May 4, 2008,
from http://journal.transformativeworks.org/
index.php/twc/article/view/90/99, 2009.
Björk, S., and J. Holopainen, J. Describing Games:
An Interaction-Centric Structural Framework.
233
In Proceedings of the DiGRA 2003 Confer-
ence — Level Up, Utrecht, 2003.
_____. Patterns in Game Design. Charles River
Media, 2005.
Björk, S., J. Falk, R. Hansson, and P. Ljungstrand,
P. “Pirates! Using the Physical World as a Game
Board.” Paper presented at the Human-Com-
puter Interaction Conference — Interact 01,
Tokyo, 2001.
Bloomfield, E. “Confrontation: The Ultimate
Endgame.” Counter 30 (2005): 62–63.
Board Game Designers Forum. Retrieved Feb-
ruary 20, 2009, from http://www.bgdf.com/,
2009.
Boardgame Players Association. Retrieved Feb-
ruary 20, 2009, from http://www.boardgam
ers.org/, 2009.
Boardgamegeek.com. Retrieved January 4, 2010,
from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.bo
ardgamegeek.com?p=tgraph&r=home_home,
2010.
Boellstorff, T. “A Ludicrous Discipline? Ethnog-
raphy and Game Studies.” Games and Culture
1, no. 1 (2006): 29–35.
Bonds, J., and D. Glimne, D. Drakborgen [Board
Game]. Alga, 1985.
Bontenbal, R. Homas Tour [Board Game].
Homas Spielen, 1979.
_____. Um Reifenbreite [Board Game]. Jumbo,
1991.
Bordenet, M. An Introduction into the World of
Gaming and How One Achieves the Identity of
a Gamer. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, West
Virginia University, 2000.
Bordieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgment of Pure Taste. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1979.
Borg, R. Liar’s Dice [Board Game]. Milton
Bradley, 1987.
_____. Bluff [Board Game]. F.X. Schmidt, 1993.
_____. Battlelore [Board Game]. Days of Won-
der, 2006.
Borgstrom, R. “Structure and Meaning in Role-
Playing Game Design.” In Second Person:
Role-Playing and Story in Games and Playable
Media., edited by P. Harrigan and N. Wardrip-
Fruin. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.
Boria, E., T. Wright, and P. Breidenbach,. “Cre-
ative Player Actions in FPS Online Video
Games: Playing Counter-Strike.” Game Stud-
ies: The International Journal of Computer
Game Research 2, no. 2 (2002).
Borman, K. M., and N. T. Lippincott. “Cogni-
tion and Culture: Two Perspectives on ‘Free
Play.’” In The Social Life of Children in a
Changing Society, edited by K. M. Borman,
123–142. Norwood: Ablex, 1982.
Boulton, M., and P. K. Smith. “The Social Na-
ture of Play Fighting and Play Chasing :
Mechanisms and Strategies Underlying Co-
234 BIBLIOGRAPHY
operation and Compromise.” In The Adapted
Mind: Evolutionary Psycholog y and the Gener-
ation of Culture, edited by J. H. Barkow, L.
Cosmides, and J. Tooby, 429–444. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992.
Bourque, F. Talisman Timescape [Board Game
Expansion]. Games Workshop, 1988.
Bowman, S. The Function of Role-Playing Games:
How Participants Create Community, Solve
Problems and Explore Identity. Jefferson NC:
McFarland, 2010.
Braunlich, T., R. Tesh, E. Lorentz, and B. Mar-
tinson. Star Trek: The Next Generation Cus-
tomizable Card Game [Card Game]. Deci-
pher, 1994.
Breese, R. Keywood [Board Game]. R&D Games,
1995.
_____. Keydom [Board Game]. R&D Games,
1998.
_____. Keytown [Board Game]. R&D Games,
2000.
_____. Keythedral [Board Game]. R&D Games,
2002.
_____. Reef Encounter [Board Game]. R&D
Games, 2004.
_____. Key Harvest [Board Game]. R&D
Games, 2007.
Bretsch, R. Mike Doyle Interview. Retrieved
August 9, 2008, from http://www.thegames
journal.com/articles/MikeDoyle.shtml, 2005.
Bridges, B. “Champions.” In Hobby Games: The
100 Best, edited by J. Lowder, 52–54. Renton:
Green Ronin, 2007.
Briggs, J., and S. Johnson. Civilization III [Video
Game]. Firaxis Games, 2001.
Bromley, D. Eurorails [Board Game]. Mayfair
Games, 1990.
Bromley, D., and B. Fawcett. Empire Builder
[Board Game]. Mayfair Games, 1980.
Bromley, D., and T. Wham. Iron Dragon [Board
Game]. Mayfair Games, 1996.
Brown, D. “Gaming DNA — on Narrative and
Gameplay Gestalts.” In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2007 Conference — Situated Play,
58–65. Tokyo, 2007.
Brown, D. “Even in Recession, Board Games
Roll Up a Win.” Retrieved January 4, 2010,
from http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/
ci_14059493, 2009.
Brown, E. “Pastimes and Paradigms: Games We
Play.” Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://rmc.
library.cornell.edu/games/plethora/index.html,
2004.
Brown, K. The British Toy Business: A History Since
1700. London: Hambledon Continuum, 1996.
Brown, S. (1998). “Play as an Organizing Prin-
ciple: Clinical Evidence and Personal Obser-
vations.” In Animal Play: Evolutionary, Com-
parative, and Ecological Perspectives, edited by
M. Bekoff and J. A. Byers, 243–259. 1998.
Bruner, G., and S. Thorne, S. “An Exploratory
Investigation of the Characteristics of Con-
sumer Fanaticism.” Qualitative Market Re-
search: An International Journal 9, no. 1
(2006): 51–72.
Brunnhofer, B., and M. Tummelhofer, M. Sankt
Petersburg [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
2004.
_____. Stone Age [Board Game]. Hans im
Glück, 2008.
Bücken, H. Ausbrecher AG [Board Game].
Ravensburger, 1988.
_____. Sahara [Card Game]. Hexagames, 1990.
Buestchler, F. Feudal [Board Game]. 3M, 1967.
Bull, G. Buccaneer [Board Game]. Wadding-
tons, 1938.
Burgess, E. “Board Game Babylon Volume 51—
Q&A with Steve Jackson at Orccon 2008
(with special co-host Paul Tevis)” [Podcast]:
Board Game Babylon, 2008a.
_____. Email Interview, 2008b.
Burggraf, M., W. Schlegel, D. Garrels, F. Ifland,
W. Scheerer, and W. Hoermann, W. Scotland
Yard [Board Game]. Ravensburger, 1983.
Burkhardt, G. Edison & Co. [Board Game].
Goldsieber, 1998.
_____. Vom Kap bis Cairo [Card Game]. Ad-
lung-Spiele, 2001.
Burley, P. Take It Easy [Board Game]. Spears,
1983.
Burm, K. Gipf [Board Game]. Don & Co, 1997.
_____. Dvonn [Board Game]. Don & Co, 2001.
Burton, A. “Design History and the History of
Toys: Defining a Discipline for the Bethnal
Green Museum of Childhood.” Journal of De-
sign History 10, no. 1 (1997): 1–21.
Butsch, R. “Leisure and Hegemony in America.”
In For Fun and Profit: The Transformation of
Leisure into Consumption, edited by R. Butsch,
3–27. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1990.
Butterfield, J. H., and H. Barasch. Freedom in
the Galaxy [Board Game]. Simulations Pub-
lications Inc, 1979.
Butts, A. M. Scrabble [Board Game]. Produc-
tion & Marketing Co, 1948.
Caillois, R. Man, Play, and Games. New York:
Free Press, 1958.
Calhamer, A. Diplomacy [Board Game]. Game
Research, 1959.
Cameron, A. Dissimulations — Illusions of In-
teractivity. Millennium Film Journal 28 (1995):
33–47.
Campaign [Board Game]. Waddingtons, 1971.
Candyland — Dora the Explorer Edition [Board
Game]. Hasbro Inc, 2005.
Candyland — Winnie The Pooh Edition [Board
Game]. Hasbro Inc., 2008.
Cappel, J. Wasabi! [Board Game]. Z-Man Games,
2008.
 Bibliography
Carlquist, J. “Playing the Story — Computer
Games as a Narrative Genre.” Human IT 6,
no. 3 (2002): 7–53.
Carmichael, J. Mr. President [Board Game].
3M, 1967.
Carr, N. “Re: How Do You Explain Your Hobby
to Strangers?” Retrieved February 3, 2009,
from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/arti
cle/632019#632019, 2005.
Carroll, P. “Re : I Don’t Get Game Publisher
Economics.” Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/288
7705#2887705m, 2008a.
_____. “Re: A Metagame?” Retrieved January
9, 2010, from http://www.boardgamegeek.
com/article/2791076#2791076, 2008b.
Carter, E. How German Is She?: Postwar West Ger-
man Reconstruction and the Consuming Woman.
Detroit: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Carver, D. Doctor Who: The Game of Time
and Space [Board Game]. Games Workshop,
1980.
_____. Showbiz [Board Game]. Prestige Games,
1985a.
_____. Warrior Knights [Board Game]. Games
Workshop, 1985b.
_____. Blood Royale [Board Game]. Games
Workshop, 1987.
_____. “Warrior Knights 2: A Reply to Stuart.”
Counter 35 (2006): 71–74.
_____. “Re: Doctor Who: The Game of Time
and Space : A Review from Memory.” Re-
trieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.board
gamegeek .com/article/1627578#1627578,
2007.
_____. (2008). Email Interview.
Casasola Merkle, M.-A. Verräter [Card Game].
Adlung-Spiele, 1998.
_____. Attika [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
2003.
_____. Taluva [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
2006.
Cathala, B., and B. Faidutti, B. Queen’s Neck-
lace [Card Game]. Days of Wonder, 2003.
Cathala, B., and S. Laget, S. Shadows Over
Camelot [Board Game]. Days of Wonder,
2005.
Catino, C. Nexus Ops [Board Game]. Avalon
Hill, 2005.
Chadwick, F. Battle for Moscow [Board Game].
Game Designers’ Workshop, 1986.
Chadwick, F., and P. Banner, P. Drang Nach
Osten [Board Game]. Game Designers’ Work-
shop, 1973.
Chakroun, K. Email Interview, 2009.
Champions of Norrath [Video Game]. Sony
Online Entertainment, 2004.
Charlton, C. Middle Earth CCG [Card Game].
Iron Crown Enterprises, 1995.
Chiarvesio, A., and L. Iennaco, L. Königsburg
235
[Board Game]. Heidelberger Spieleverlag,
2007.
Ciaffone, R. Robert’s Rules Of Poker Version 4.
Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.
pokercoach.us/RobsPkrRules4.htm, 2004.
Clifford, M. “Essen 2000.” Counter 11 (2000):
21–22.
The Coaster Proclamation of 1988. Retrieved
May 31, 2010, from http://www.spieleautor
enzunft.de/coaster-proclamation.html, 2010.
Cornett, G. Kahuna [Board Game]. Kosmos,
1998.
Confrontation [Board Game]. Ariel/Philmar,
1974.
Conrad, C. Vino [Board Game]. Goldsieber,
1999.
Consalvo, M. Gaining Advantage: How Videogame
Players Define and Negotiate Cheating. In Pro-
ceedings of the DiGRA 2005 Conference :
Changing Views — Worlds in Play, Vancou-
ver, 2005a.
_____. “Rule Sets, Cheating, and Magic Circles:
Studying Games and Ethics.” International
Review of Information Ethics 3 (2005b): 7–12.
Conte, R., and C. Castelfranchi. Cognitive and
Social Action. London: University College,
1995.
Cook, M. “The Game Master and the Role-
Playing Game Campaign.” In Third Person :
Authoring and Exploring Vast Narratives, ed-
ited by P. Harrigan and N. Wardrip-Fruin,
97–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
Copier, M. “Connecting Worlds: Fantasy Role-
Playing Games, Ritual Acts and the Magic
Circle.” Paper presented at the DiGRA 2005
Conference : Changing Views — Worlds in
Play, Vancouver, 2005.
Costikyan, G. Swords and Sorcery [Board
Game]. Simulations Publications Inc., 1978.
_____. The Creature That Ate Sheboygan [Board
Game]. Simulations Publications Inc., 1979.
_____. Trailblazer [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1981.
_____. “I Have No Words and I Must Design.”
Interactive Fantasy 3. Retrieved May 4, 2007,
from http://www.costik.com/nowords.html,
1994.
_____. “A Farewell to Hexes.” Retrieved May 5,
2008, from http://www.costik.com/spisins.
html, 1996.
_____. “Don’t Be a Vidiot : What Computer
Game Designers Can Learn from Non-Elec-
tronic Games.” Retrieved June 11, 2004, from
http://www.costik.com/vidiot.html, 1998.
_____. “I Have No Words and I Must Design:
Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Games.” In
Proceedings of the Computer Games and Digital
Cultures Conference, edited by F. Mäyrä, 9–
33. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University
Press, 2002.
236 BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____. “German Boardgames as Fraud.” Re-
trieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.
costik.com/weblog/2004_08_01_blogchive.h
tml#109217452587191819, 2004.
_____. “The Revolution Began with Paper.” Re-
trieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.esca
pistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_4
2/253-The-Revolution-Began-With-Paper.2,
2006.
_____. “Games, Storytelling and Breaking the
String.” In Second Person: Role-Playing and
Story in Games and Playable Media, edited by
P. Harrigan and N. Wardrip-Fruin, 5–13.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.
_____. “Randomness: Blight or Bane?” Re-
trieved December 4, 2009, from http://www.
gamasutra.com/blogs/GregCostikyan/2009111
3/3552/Randomness_Blight_or_Bane.php,
2009.
Costikan, G., and D. Davidson, et al. (eds.).
Tabletop: Analog Game Design. ETC Press, 2011.
Costikyan, G., D. Gelber, and E. Goldberg.
Paranoia [Role-playing Game]. West End
Games, 1984.
Costikyan, G., and R. A. Simonsen. The Return
of the Stainless Steel Rat [Board Game]. Sim-
ulations Publications, Inc., 1981.
Costikyan, G. and W. Spector. Toon [Role-play-
ing Game]. Steve Jackson Games, 1984.
Cover, J. The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop
Role-Playing Games. Jefferson NC : McFar-
land, 2010.
Cowley, B., D. Charles, M. Black, and R.
Hickey. “Toward an Understanding of Flow
in Video Games.” ACM Computers in Enter-
tainment 6, no. 2 (2008).
Cox, R. “Re : Non-Gamers Rate Boardgames
(Including Shogun, Modern Art.)— Large
Test in Newspaper. Retrieved March 9, 2010,
from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/arti
cle/2875259#2875259, 2008.
Crapuchettes, D. Wits and Wagers [Board
Game]. North Star Games, 2005.
_____. Email Interview, 2008.
Crawford, C. “The Art of Computer Game De-
sign.” Washington State University. Retrieved
May 7, 2006, from http://www.vancouver.
wsu.edu/fac/peabody/gamebook/Coverpage.
html, 1982.
Crawford, K. “Vygotskian Approaches in Human
Development in the Information Era.” Edu-
cational Studies in Mathematics 31, no. 1/2
(1996): 43–62.
Crogan, P. “Wargaming and Computer Games:
Fun with the Future.” In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2003 Conference—Level Up, Utrecht,
2003.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psycholog y of
Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and
Row, 1990.
Culin, S. “Street Games of Boys in Brooklyn.”
Journal of American Folklore 4 (1891): 221–
237.
_____. Mancala, the National Game of Africa.
Annual Report of the U.S. National Museum
1894, 597–606.
_____. Korean Games, with Notes on the Corre-
sponding Games at China and Japan. Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, 1895 (reprinted as
Games of the Orient. Rutand, VT: Charles
Tuttle Co., 1958).
_____. Hawaiian Games. American Anthropolo-
gist 1, no. 2 (1899): 201–247.
_____. Philippine Games. American Anthropol-
ogist 2 (1900): 643–656.
_____. 24th Annual Report of the Bureau of
American Ethnolog y: Games of North American
Indians. Washington, D.C : United States
Government Printing Office, 1907.
Curry, A. “Monopoly Killer: Perfect German
Board Game Redefines Genre.” Wired (April
2009): 60–72
Czege, P. My Life with Master [Role-playing
Game]. Half Meme Press, 2003.
_____. “My Life with Master: The Architecture
of Protagonism.” In Second Person: Role-Play-
ing and Story in Games and Playable Media,
edited by P. Harrigan and N. Wardrip-Fruin,
67–68. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.
Dagger, S. “Es War Einmal.” The Games Journal.
Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.the
gamesjournal.com/articles/GermanHistory.sh
tml, 2003.
_____. “Warrior Knights Old and New.”
Counter 34 (2006a): 73–76.
_____. “What Is a Game Worth? The Misguided
Game Buyer Looks at Value. Counter 33
(2006b): 14–16.
_____. “Of Dice and Men” (editorial). Counter
36 (2007): 4–5.
_____. Email Interview, 2008.
Dancey, R. S. “Adventure Game Industry Mar-
ket Research Summary (RPGs), V1.0.” Re-
trieved January 2, 2009, from http://www.
seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotC
MarketResearchSummary.html, 2000.
Dancing with the Stars Board Game [Board
Game]. University Games, 2008.
Darcy, J., R. Tesh, and T. Braunlich. Star Wars
CCG [Card Game]. Decipher, 1995.
Darrow, C., and E. Magie. Monopoly [Board
Game]. Parker Brothers, 1935.
Daviau, R. Risk (Revised Edition) [Board Game].
Parker Brothers, 2008.
Davidoff, D., H. Marly, and P. Des Pallières. Die
Werwölfe von Düsterwald [Role-playing
Game]. 999 Games, 2001.
De Boer, C. J., and M. H. Lamers, M. H. “Elec-
tronic Augmentation of Traditional Board
Games.” In M. Rauterberg (ed.), ICEC 2004.
 Bibliography
LNCS, vol. 3166: 441–444. Springer, Heidel-
berg, 2004.
Degann, J. “What Is This Board Game About?”
Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://jbd
games.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-this-
game-about.html, 2008.
Delfanti, G., P. Trigaux, and G. Mathieu. Full
Métal Planète [Board Game]. Ludodelire,
1988.
Delonge, F.-B. Goldbräu [Board Game]. Zoch
Verlag, 2004.
Deppey, D. “X-Men. Retreat!” The Comics Jour-
nal, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://
www.tcj.com/index .php?option=com_con
tent&task=view&id=324&Itemid=48, 2004.
De Rosa, P. The Fall of Avalon Hill. The Strate-
gist, 7–8. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://
gis.net/~pldr/fah.html, 1998.
Deutscher Spiele Preis. Retrieved February 2,
2008, from http://www.deutscherspielepreis.
de/, 2008.
Deutsches Spiele-Archiv. Retrieved January 9,
2008, from http://www.deutsches-spiele-arch
iv.de/, 2008.
Deutsches Spielemuseum e.V. Retrieved January
18, 2008, from http://www.deutsches-spiele-
museum.de/, 2008.
Dexter: The Board Game [Board Game]. GDC-
GameDevCo Ltd., 2010.
Dixon, B. 1870 [Board Game]. Mayfair Games,
1994.
Dontanville, M. “Musings on ... Hybrid Games.”
Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.
boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgame
news/comments/musings_on_hybrid_games_
32/, 2006.
Dormans, J. “On the Role of the Die: A Brief
Ludologic Study of Pen-and-Paper Roleplay-
ing Games and Their Rules.” Game Studies:
The International Journal of Computer Game
Research 6, no. 1 (2006).
Dorn, R. Die Händler von Genua [Board Game].
Alea, 2001a.
_____. The Traders of Genoa [Board Game].
Rio Grande Games, 2001b.
_____. Goa [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
2004.
_____. Louis XIV [Board Game]. Alea, 2005.
_____. Goa — New Version. Retrieved January
5, 2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.
com/thread/381155/goa-new-version, 2009.
Dorra, S. Intrige [Board Game]. F.X. Schmidt,
1994.
_____. Linie Eins [Board Game]. Goldsieber,
1995.
_____. For Sale [Card Game]. Ravensburger, 1997.
_____. Alles im Eimer [Card Game]. Kosmos,
2002.
Doumen, J., and J. Wiersinga. Bus [Board
Game]. Splotter Spellen, 1999a.
237
_____. Roads and Boats [Board Game]. Splotter
Spellen, 1999b.
_____. Indonesia [Board Game]. Splotter
Spellen, 2005.
Dreiling, M. China Rails [Board Game]. May-
fair Games, 2007.
Drew. (2007). “Re: Why I’m a Eurogamer.” Re-
trieved January 1, 2009, from http://www.
boardgamegeek.com/article/1376679#137667
9, 2007.
Drögemüller, J. Das Zepter von Zavandor
[Board Game]. Lookout Games, 2004.
Drover, G. Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Board-
game [Board Game]. Eagle Games, 2002.
Drover, G., and M. Wallace. Railroad Tycoon
[Board Game]. Eagle Games, 2005.
Drude, H. “BGG at Göttingen Game Designers’
Convention.” Retrieved May 6, 2010, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/522
405/bgg-at-gottingen-game-designers-conve
ntion, 2010.
Dubin, D. “Re: My Confession: Some Bother-
some Things I’ve Realized About My Approach
to the Gaming Hobby.” Retrieved January 12,
2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
article/2198747#2198747, 2008.
Duke, R. Gaming: The Future’s Language. New
York: Sage, 1974.
Dunnigan, J. F. PanzerBlitz [Board Game].
Avalon Hill, 1970.
_____. Outdoor Survival [Board Game]. Avalon
Hill, 1972.
_____. Sniper! [Board Game]. Simulations Pub-
lications Inc., 1973.
_____. War in Europe [Board Game]. Simula-
tions Publications Inc., 1976a.
_____. War in the West [Board Game]. Simu-
lations Publications Inc., 1976b.
_____. The Complete Wargames Handbook.
New York: William Morrow, 1980a.
_____. Wreck of the B.S.M. Pandora [Board
Game]. Simulations Publications Inc., 1980b.
_____. The Complete Wargames Handbook. Re-
trieved August 18, 2007, from http://www.
hyw.com/books/wargameshandbook/5-histor.
htm, 1997.
_____. Year 2000 Introduction for the Wargames
Handbook. In The Wargames Handbook, Third
Edition. Writers Club Press, 2000.
Eberle, B., J. Kittredge, and P. Olotka. Cosmic
Encounter [Board Game]. Eon Games, 1977.
_____. Dune [Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1979.
_____. Quirks [Board Game]. Eon, 1980.
_____. Borderlands [Board Game]. Eon, 1982.
Edan, H. L’Attaque [Board Game]. Au Jeu
Retrouvé, 1909.
Edwards, B. “The History of Civilization.” Re-
trieved December 9, 2007, from http://www.
gamasutra.com/view/feature/1523/the_his
tory_of_civilization.php?page=1, 2007.
238 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Edwards, R. “GNS and Other Matters of Role-
Playing Theory.” Retrieved June 4, 2008, from
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/, 2001.
Edwards, R., S. Goldberg, and Grady. Sherlock
Holmes Criminal-Cabinet [Board Game].
Franckh-Kosmos, 1981.
Egenfeldt-Nelson, S., J. H. Smith, and S. Tosca.
Understanding Video Games. New York: Rout-
ledge, 2008.
Eggert, M. “Rick Heli Plays Board Games in the
San Francisco Bay Area.” Retrieved July 1,
2008, from http://www.spotlightongames.
com/interview/heli1.html, 2005.
_____. “What Is a “Pöppel”? Retrieved February
9, 2008, from http://www.westpark-gamers.
de/index.html?/transcripts/ggn17, 2006a.
_____. “Why There Are No Wargames in Ger-
many.” Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://
www.westpark-gamers.de/transcripts/german
wargames.html, 2006b.
Ehrhard, D., and D. Vitale. Condottiere [Board
Game]. Descartes Editeur, 1995.
_____. Serenissima [Board Game]. Eurogames,
1996.
Election [Board Game]. Intellect Games, 1972.
Elias, S., J. Tweet, and R. Heinsoo, R. Dungeons
and Dragons Miniatures [Collectible Minia-
tures Game]. Wizards of the Coast, 2003.
Erickson, R. S., and T. Erickson Jr. Rail Baron
[Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1977.
Eskelinen, M. “The Gaming Situation.” Game
Studies: The International Journal of Computer
Game Research 1, no. 1 (2001).
_____. “500 Words on ‘Game Design as Narra-
tive Architecture’ by Henry Jenkins.” In First
Person, edited by N. Wardrip-Fruin and P.
Harrigan. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2004.
_____. “Explorations in Game Ecology, Part 1.”
Jahrbuch für Computerphilologie 7 (2005): 93–
110.
Eskin, B. “Extraordinary Meeples.” Retrieved
May 25, 2009, from http://www.printmag.
com/design_articles/extraordinary_meeples/t
abid/365/Default.aspx, 2008.
_____. “Like Monopoly in the Depression, Set-
tlers of Catan Is the Board Game of Our
Time.” Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2010/11/24/AR2010112404140.html?hp
id=opinionsbox1, 2010.
Essen Feather. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from
http://www.deutscherspielepreis.de/p070.ph
p4, 2008.
Events [Board Game]. 3M, 1974.
Exit191. Carcassonne: Dragon Riders and Slayers
[Board Game Expansion]. Web Published,
2006a.
_____. Carcassonne: The Well and the Donkey
[Board Game Expansion]. Web Published,
2006b.
EYE of NiGHT. “Re : How Do You Explain
Your Hobby to Strangers?” Retrieved January
14, 2010, from http://www.boardgamegeek.
com/article/632748#632748, 2005.
Faidutti, B. Bongo [Dice Game]. Heidelberger
Spieleverlag, 2000a.
_____. Ohne Furcht und Adel [Card Game].
Hans im Glück, 2000b.
_____. “A Theme, What For?” Retrieved August
5, 2008, from http://www.faidutti.com/in
dex.php?Module=divers&id=455, 2005a.
_____. “Theme and Mechanics 1.0.” Retrieved
March 14, 2007, from http://www.thegames
journal.com/articles/ThemesMechanics1.shtml,
2005b.
_____. “Theme Changed by Publisher.” Re-
trieved April 4, 2008, from http://boardgame
geek.com/geeklist/16285/page/1, 2006.
_____. “Cosmic Encounter.” In Hobby Games:
The 100 Best, edited by J. Lowder, 66–68.
Renton: Green Ronin, 2007.
_____. Email Interview, 2008.
_____. “The Traitor and the Mutineer.” Re-
trieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.
faidutti.com/index.php?Module=mesjeux&id
=328&fichier=107, n.d.
Faidutti, B., P. Clequin, D. Carver, and C.
Konieczka. Warrior Knights [Board Game].
Fantasy Flight Games, 2006.
Faidutti, B., and M. Schacht. Fist of Dragon-
stones [Card Game]. Days of Wonder, 2002.
Falco, M. Set [Card Game]. Set Enterprises,
1991.
Farrell, C. “Re : Giving Up on Games Too
Quickly.” Retrieved July 14, 2008, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/453
590#453590, 2005.
Farrell, J. “BGG Extended Stats.” Retrieved Jan-
uary 24, 2009, from http://friendless.serveg
ame.org/stats/, 2009.
Fawcett, B. India Rails [Board Game]. Mayfair
Games, 1999.
Fay, I. “Filtering Feedback.” In Tabletop: Analog
Game Design, edited by G. Costikan and D.
Davidson, et al., 54–60. ETC Press, 2011.
Featherstone, M. Consumer Culture and Post-
modernism. New York: Sage, 1991.
Feld, S. Im Jahr des Drachen [Board Game].
Alea, 2007a.
_____. Notre Dame [Board Game]. Alea, 2007b.
Fenchel, G. La Città [Board Game]. Kosmos,
2000.
Fenwick, R. Fortune [Board Game]. Ariel/
Philmar, 1979.
FIFA Soccer 2004 [Video Game]. Electronic
Arts, 2003.
Fine, G. A. Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games
as Social Worlds. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1983.
_____. “Mobilizing Fun: Provisioning Resources
 Bibliography
in Leisure Worlds.” Sociolog y of Sport 6, no. 4
(1989): 319–334.
Finn, M. Computer Games and Narrative Pro-
gression. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture
3, no. 5. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://
journal.media-culture.org.au/0010/narrative.
php, 2000.
Fiske, J. “The Cultural Economy of Fandom.”
In The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and
Popular Media, edited by L. A. Lewis, 30–49.
New York: Routledge, 1992.
Flabber23. “Boardgames: Higher Entertainment
Value Than You Thought!” Retrieved January
6, 2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.
com/thread/231584, 2007.
Foo, C. Y., and E. M. I. Koivisto. “Defining
Grief Play in MMORPGs: Player and Devel-
oper Perceptions.” Paper presented at the
ACM SIGCHI International Conference on
Advances in Computer Entertainment Tech-
nology, National University of Singapore,
2004.
Frasca, G. “Ludology Meets Narratology: Simil-
itude and Differences Between (Video)Games
and Narrative.” Retrieved January 8, 2003,
from http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludol
ogy.htm, 1999.
_____. “Simulation 101: Simulation Versus Rep-
resentation.” Retrieved June 30, 2004, from
http://www.ludology.org/articles/sim1/simu-
lation101.html, 2001a.
_____. Videogames of the Oppressed: Videogames
as a Means for Critical Thinking and Debate.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Georgia Insti-
tute of Technology, Atlanta, 2001b.
_____. “Ludologists Love Stories, Too: Notes
from a Debate That Never Took Place.” In
Proceedings of the DiGRA 2003 Confer-
ence — Level Up: Utrecht, 2003.
Freeman, J. The Complete Book of Wargames.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980.
Freud, A. The Psychoanalytic Treatment of Chil-
dren. New York : International Universities
Press, 1968.
Freud, S. Beyond the Pleasure Principle (translated
by J. Strachey). New York: Norton, 1959.
Freund, W. “Pretty German Games.” Retrieved
April 18, 2008, from http://www.magazine-
deutschland.de/magazin/US-Spiele_3-05_
ENG_E5.php, 2005.
Friedman, M. (ed.). Consumption and Identity.
Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Friese, F. Turbo Taxi [Board Game]. 2F-Spiele,
2000.
_____. Funkenschlag (Second Edition) [Board
Game]. 2F-Spiele, 2004.
Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method, Second Edi-
tion (translated by J. Weinsheimer and D.
Marshall). New York: Crossroad, 1960.
Galanti, G. “Tete-a-Tete with JSP.” GiocAreA
239
OnLine. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from
http://www.davincigames.it/giocarea_eng/17/
cover.htm, 2005.
The Game Cabinet. Retrieved April 17, 2008,
from http://www.gamecabinet.com/, 2000.
Game Designers — A Plea with Historic Over -
view. Retrieved May 31, 2010, from http://
www.spieleautorenzunft.de/a-plea-with-his
toric-overview.html, 2010.
The Game of Life — Pirates of the Caribbean
[Board Game]. Hasbro Inc., 2004.
The Game of Life — Simpsons Edition [Board
Game]. Hasbro Inc., 2004.
Garfield, R. Magic: The Gathering [Card Game].
Wizards of the Coast, 1993.
_____. Roborally [Board Game]. Wizards of the
Coast, 1994.
_____. Netrunner [Card Game]. Wizards of the
Coast, 1996.
_____. “Metagames.” In J. Dietz Horsemen of
the Apocalypse: Essays on Roleplaying, edited by
J. Dietz, 16–21. Charleston, IL: Jolly Roger
Games, 2000.
Garfield, R., L. S. Johnson, and R. Goudie. Vam-
pire: The Eternal Struggle [Card Game]. Wiz-
ards of the Coast, 1994.
“Gary Gygax Interview.” Retrieved October
12th, 2007, from http://www.gamebanshee.
com/interviews/garygygax1.php, 2000.
Gerdts, M. Antike [Board Game]. Eggertspiele,
2005.
_____. Imperial [Board Game]. Eggertspiele,
2006.
Gertzbein, A., and J. Cappel, J. Wasabi [Board
Game]. Z-Man Games, 2008.
Gibson, H. Dover Patrol [Board Game]. Gib-
sons Games, 1911.
Giles, G. “House of Cards.” Retrieved June 8,
2008, from http://www.metroactive.com/pa
pers/sonoma/11.09.95/magic.html, 1995.
Gimmler, T. Geschenkt [Card Game]. Amigo
Spiele, 2004.
Gingold, C. Miniature Gardens and Magic
Crayons: Games, Spaces, and Worlds. Unpub-
lished Master’s Thesis, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 2003.
Giulanotti, R. “Participant Observation and Re-
search into Football Hooliganism: Reflections
on the Problems of Entree and Everyday
Risks.” Sociology of Sport 12, no. 1 (1995): 1–20.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss, A. Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Re-
search. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson,
1967.
Glassco, B. “Betrayed Once More — 2nd Edition
Is Now a Go!” Retrieved January 4, 2010,
from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thre
ad/466307/betrayed-once-more-2nd-edi
tion-is-now-a-go, 2009.
Glee Board Game [Board Game]. Cardinal, 2010.
240 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Glenn, S. “Interview with Reiner Knizia — Fall
1999.” Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://
www.funagain.com/control/rc?p=knizia99,
1999a.
_____. “Interview with Jay Tummelson — Win-
ter 1999.” Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://
www.funagain.com/control/rc?p=tummel
son99, 1999b.
_____. “Interview with Reiner Knizia — Fall
2002.” Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://
www.convivium.org.uk/kgfgi.htm, 2002.
_____. Balloon Cup [Card Game]. Kosmos,
2003.
Gobet, F., A. De Voogt, and J. Retschitzki.
Moves in Mind: The Psycholog y of Board
Games. Hove: Psychology Press, 2004.
Goffman, E. “Fun in Games.” In Encounters:
Two Studies in the Sociolog y of Interaction, 15–
81. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961.
Goldberg, E. Tales of the Arabian Nights [Board
Game]. West End Games, 1985.
Goldfarb, M. E. “The Educational Theory of
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896–1934).” Re-
trieved June 4, 2002, from http://www.new
foundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.html,
2001.
Goslar, R., and T. Goslar, T. Lost Valley [Board
Game]. Heidelberger Spieleverlag, 2004.
Gossip Girl Never Have I Ever Game [Board
Game]. Imagination Games, 2009.
Gray, M. Fortress America [Board Game]. Mil-
ton Bradley, 1986a.
_____. Shogun [Board Game]. Milton Bradley,
1986b.
Gray, M., G. Gygax, L. Kessling, D. Megarry,
S. Schwab, and S. Winter, S. Dungeon!
[Board Game], TSR, 1975.
Gray, W. “History of Wargaming.” Retrieved
May 4, 2009, from http://www.hmgs.org/his
tory.htm, 2008.
Greenwood, D. Advanced Squad Leader [Board
Game]. Avalon Hill, 1985.
Greenwood, D., and M. Matheny, M. Circus
Maximus [Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1979.
Grodal, T. “Video Games and the Pleasures of
Control.” In Media Entertainment, edited by
D. Zillman and P. Vorderer, 197–212. 2002.
Groos, K. The Play of Animals. New York: D.
Appleton and Co., 1898.
_____. The Play of Man. New York: D. Appleton
and Co., 1901.
Gross, K. Ice War [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1978.
_____. Invasion of the Air-Eaters [Board Game].
Metagaming, 1979.
_____. The Lords of Underearth [Board Game].
Metagaming, 1981.
Grossberg, L. We Gotta Get Out of This Place:
Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture.
London: Routledge, 1992.
Grubb, J. Marvel Super Heroes [Role-Playing
Game]. Tactical Studies Rules, 1984.
Grubb, J., D. Megarry, and S. Winter. The New
Dungeon! [Board Game], TSR, 1989.
_____. The Classic Dungeon! [Board Game],
TSR, 1992.
Grubb, J., J. Tweet, B. Slavicsek, and R. Watkins.
Star Wars Miniatures [Collectible Miniatures
Game]. Wizards of the Coast, 2004.
Gruber, H. E., and J. J. Voneche (eds.). The Es-
sential Piaget. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Gygax, G. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
[Role-playing Game]. Tactical Studies Rules,
1977.
Gygax, G., and D. Arneson, D. Dungeons and
Dragons [Role-playing Game]. Tactical Stud-
ies Rules, 1974a.
_____. Dungeons and Dragons Vol. 3: Wilder-
ness and Underworld Adventures [Role-play-
ing Game]. Tactical Studies Rules, 1974b.
Gygax, G., and B. Blume. Boot Hill [Role-play-
ing Game]. Tactical Studies Rules, 1975.
Gygax, G., and J. Perren, J. Chainmail: Rules for
Medieval Miniatures. Guidon Games, 1971.
Haag, A. “Games International — The Journal
of Fun and Games.” Retrieved June 4, 2008,
from http://www.westpark-gamers.de/index.
html?/Artikel/gamesintl.html&http%3A//w
ww.westpark-gamers.de/Artikel/GIinterview.
html, 2003.
Haddon, L. “Electronic and Computer Games:
The History of an Interactive Medium.”
Screen 29, no. 2 (1981): 52–73.
Hall, G. S. Youth. New York: D. Appleton and
Co., 1906.
Hamblen, R. Magic Realm [Board Game].
Avalon Hill, 1978.
_____. Gunslinger [Board Game]. Avalon Hill,
1982.
Hamburg, M. “Re : Why FASTER FASTER
FASTER??? Why?” Retrieved November 4,
2008, from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
article/586852#586852, 2005.
Hamlin, D. “The Structures of Toy Consump-
tion: Bourgeois Domesticity and Demand for
Toys in Nineteenth-Century Germany.” Jour-
nal of Social History 36, no. 4 (2003): 857–
869.
Haney, C., and S. Abbot. Trivial Pursuit [Board
Game]. Horn Abbot, 1981.
Hanson, A. “Ravensburger Takes Flight.” Knuck-
lebones (March 2006): 44–46.
Hardin, A. “Is It Really About Theme vs. Me-
chanic?” The Games Journal Retrieved Febru-
ary 12, 2008, from http://www.thegamesjour
nal.com/articles/ThemeVsMechanics.shtml.
2001.
Hardy, I. B. Outreach [Board Game]. Simula-
tions Publications Inc., 1976.
Harper, B., L. Banerd, J. Eliason, J. Groteboer,
 Bibliography
E. Hunter, S. Padgett, et al. Advanced Civi-
lization [Board Game Expansion]. Avalon
Hill, 1991.
Harrigan, P., and N. Wardrip-Fruin (eds.). First
Person: New Media as Story Performance and
Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
_____. Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in
Games and Playable Media. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2007.
_____. Third Person: Authoring and Exploring
Vast Narratives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2009.
Harris, L. H. Axis and Allies [Board Game].
Milton Bradley, 1981.
_____. Broadsides and Boarding Parties [Board
Game]. Milton Bradley, 1982.
_____. Conquest of the Empire [Board Game].
Milton Bradley, 1984.
Harris, R. Talisman [Board Game]. Games
Workshop, 1983.
_____. Talisman Expansion Set [Board Game
Expansion]. Games Workshop, 1986.
_____. Talisman Dungeon [Board Game Expan-
sion]. Games Workshop, 1987.
_____. Talisman: The Magical Quest Game.
Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.har
ris-authors.com/talisman_history.html, 2007.
Hartwell, David G. Age of Wonders: Exploring
the World of Science Fiction. New York: Walker
and Company, 1984.
Hartwig, K. Chinatown [Board Game]. Alea,
1999.
Hauser, E. “Ravensburger AG.” In International
Directory of Company Histories, 64. 1993.
Havens, K. Jati [Board Game]. 3M, 1965.
Hefner, D., C. Klimmt, and P. Vorderer. “Iden-
tification with the Player Character as Deter-
minant of Video Game Enjoyment.” Paper
presented at the ICEC 2007, 6th International
Conference on Entertainment Computing,
2007.
Heide Smith, J. “The Aesthetics of Antago-
nism.” Paper presented at the Aesthetics of
Play Conference, Bergen. Retrieved May 7,
2007, from http://www.aestheticsofplay.org/
papers/smith2.htm, 2005.
_____. Plans and Purposes: How Videogame Goals
Shape Player Behaviour. Unpublished Doc-
toral Dissertation, I.T. University of Copen-
hagen, Copenhagen, 2006.
Hein, P. Hex [Board Game]. Piet Hein A/S,
1942.
Heli, R. “State of the Board Games World.” Re-
trieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.spot-
lightongames.com/list/history.html, 2004.
_____. “Moritz Eggert Plays Board Games in
Munich, Germany.” Retrieved April 5, 2008,
from http://www.spotlightongames.com/in
terview/eggert.html, 2007.
Helldörfer, C. (“Sammlung des Deutschen
241
Spiele-Archivs Kommt Nach Nürnberg.” Re-
trieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.nz-
online.de/artikel.asp?art=1210751&kat=317&
man=3, 2010.
Helms, D. B., and J. S. Turner. Exploring Child
Behaviour. Japan: Holt-Saunders, 1981.
Hely, C., and R. Pelek. Santiago [Board Game].
Amigo Spiele., 2003.
Hemberger, S. “Re : Why FASTER FASTER
FASTER??? Why?” Retrieved January 9,
2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
article/587231#587231, 2005.
Henn, D. Show Manager [Board Game]. Queen,
1996.
_____. Metro [Board Game]. Queen, 1997.
_____. Atlantic Star [Board Game]. Queen, 2001.
_____. Wallenstein [Board Game]. Queen, 2002.
_____. Alhambra [Board Game]. Queen, 2003.
_____. Alhambra — Das Würfelspiel [Board
Game]. Queen, 2006.
Henninger, E., J. Roznai, J. Griffin, and B. Roz-
nai. British Rails [Board Game]. Mayfair
Games, 1984.
Hennion, A. “Those Things That Hold Us To-
gether: Taste and Sociology.” Cultural Sociol-
og y 1, no. 1 (2007): 97–114.
Hensley, S. L. Deadlands [Role-playing Game].
Pinnacle Entertainment Group, 1996.
Herman, M., and E. Goldberg. John Carter:
Warlord of Mars [Board Game]. Simulations
Publications Inc., 1979.
Hermosa, C. “User Profile.” Retrieved January
15, 2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.
com/user/MScrivner, 2007.
Hersch, B. Outburst! [Board Game]. Hersch and
Company, 1986.
_____. Taboo [Board Game]. Hasbro GMBH,
1989.
Herschler, F. A. Foil [Card Game]. 3M, 1968.
_____. Challenge Football [Card Game]. 3M,
1972a.
_____. Challenge Golf at Pebble Beach [Board
Game]. 3M, 1972b.
Hertzano, E. Rummikub [Board Game]. In-
telli/Arxon, 1977.
Hill, J. Squad Leader [Board Game]. Avalon
Hill, 1977.
“Hippodice Spieleclub e.V.” Retrieved June 21,
2008, from http://www.hippodice.de/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
8&Itemid=1, 2008.
Hodel, W. Mississippi Queen [Board Game].
Goldsieber, 1998a.
_____. Mississippi Queen: The Black Rose
[Board Game Expansion]. Goldsieber, 1998b.
Hofer, M. K. The Games We Played: The Golden
Age of Board and Table Games. New York :
Princeton Architectural Press, 2003.
Hoffmann, R. Ogallala [Card Game]. Pelikan,
1975.
242 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Holt, R., and J. Mitterer. “Examining Video
Game Immersion as a Flow State.” Paper pre-
sented at the 108th Annual Psychological As-
sociation Conference, Washington DC, 2000.
Holzgrafe, R. “Re: You Know What I Realized?”
Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.
boardgamegeek.com/article/1195713#1195713,
2006.
Homans, G. C. “Social Behavior as Exchange.”
American Journal of Sociolog y 63, no. 6 (1958):
597–606.
Hostettler, U. Kremlin [Board Game]. Avalon
Hill, 1988.
Huber, J. Email Interview, 2008.
Hughes, L. A. “Beyond the Rules of the Game:
Why are Rooie Rules Nice?” In The World of
Play: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of
the Association of the Anthropological Study of
Play, edited by F. E. Manning, 188–199. New
York: Leisure Press, 1988.
_____. “‘But That’s Not Really Mean’: Com-
peting in a Cooperative Mode.” Sex Roles 9,
no. 11/12 (1988): 669–687.
_____. “Foursquare: A Glossary and ‘Native’
Taxonomy of Game Rules.” Play and Culture
2, no. 2 (1989): 102–136.
_____. “Children’s Games and Gaming.” In
Children’s Folklore: A Sourcebook, edited by B.
Sutton-Smith, J. Mechling, T. W. Johnson,
and F. R. McMahon, 93–119. New York: Gar-
land, 1999.
Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play
Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press,
1950.
Hunicke, R., M. LeBlanc, and R. Zubek. “MDA:
A Formal Approach to Game Design and
Game Research.” In Proceedings of the Chal-
lenges in Game AI Workshop, 19th National
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San
Jose, CA: AAAI Press, 2004.
Hurter, W. Memory [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 1959.
Huzzey, R. A. “Games Mecca?” The Games Jour-
nal. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.
thegamesjournal.com/articles/GamingMecca.
shtml, 2002.
“Internationale Spieltage.” Retrieved May 15,
2008, from http://www.merz-verlag.com/sp
iel/index.php4, 2008.
“Interview with Klaus Teuber.” Retrieved May
3, 2008, from http://catanonline.com/news/
klausteuberinterview01.htm?, 2005.
Jacklin, K. “Simply Knizia: The Art in Keeping
Game Design Simple.” In Tabletop: Analog
Game Design, edited by G. Costikan and D.
Davidson, et al., 47–53. ETC Press, 2011.
Jackson, M. “Five & Dime: How It All Started.”
Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://aka
pastorguy.blogspot.com/2006/01/five-dime-
how-it-all-started.html, 2006.
Jackson, S. Melee [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1977a.
_____. Ogre [Board Game]. Metagaming, 1977b.
_____. G.E.V. [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1978a.
_____. Wizard [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1978b.
_____. Illuminati [Card Game]. Steve Jackson
Games, 1983.
_____. Generic Universal Role Playing System
(GURPS) [Role-playing Game]. Steve Jack-
son Games, 1986.
_____. “Illuminati Designer.” Retrieved May 9,
2008, from http://www.sjgames.com/illumi-
nati/designart.html, n.d.
Jackson, S., and C. Irby, C. Car Wars [Board
Game]. Steve Jackson Games, 1981.
Jacobi, P. 1876 [Board Game]. Chris Lawson,
1996.
Jakeliunas, A., and G. Cornett, G. Packeis am
Pol [Board Game]. Bambus Spieleverlag,
2003.
James, E. Science Fiction in the Twentieth Cen-
tury. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Jansz, J., and L. Martens, L. “Gaming at a LAN
Event: The Social Context of Playing Video-
games.” New Media and Society 7, no. 3
(2005): 333–355.
Jaquays, P. “Runequest.” In Hobby Games: The
100 Best, edited by J. Lowder, 261–264. Ren-
ton: Green Ronin, 2007.
Jaquet, G., and K. M. Ward. Gamma World
[Role-playing Game]. Tactical Studies Rules,
1978.
Järvinen, A. Games Without Frontiers: Theories
and Methods for Game Studies and Design.
Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller, 2009.
Jenkins, H. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and
Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge,
1992.
_____. “Game Design as Narrative Architec-
ture.” In First Person: New Media as Story, Per-
formance and Game, edited by P. Harrington
and N. Frup-Waldrop, 118–130. Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2002a.
_____. “Interactive Audiences?: The ‘Collective
Intelligence’ of Media Fans.” In The New
Media Book, edited by D. Harries, 157–170.
London: British Film Institute, 2002b.
Jenkins, J. “Re: Are we at the Start of a Resur-
gence of Boardgame Popularity?” Retrieved
January 12, 2010, from http://www.boardga
megeek.com/article/2794381#2794381, 2008.
Jensen, J. “Fandom as Pathology: The Conse-
quences of Characterization.” In The Adoring
Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed-
ited by L. A. Lewis, 9–29. London: Rout-
ledge, 1992.
Jolly, T. Wiz War [Board Game]. Jolly Games,
1983.
 Bibliography
Jome, E. “How Many Plays Should We Expect
Out of a Game?” Retrieved January 9, 2009,
from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/
291911, 2008.
Jones, K. “Playing It for Real.” Simulation and
Gaming 29, no. 3 (1998): 351–354.
Jump the Queue [Board Game]. Spears, 1989.
Jumpin [Board Game]. 3M, 1964.
Juul, J. A Clash Between Game and Narrative.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2001a.
_____. “Games Telling Stories?— A Brief Note
on Games and Narrative.” Game Studies: The
International Journal of Computer Game Re-
search 1, no. 1 (2001b).
_____. “The Open and the Closed: Games of
Emergence and Games of Progression.” In
Proceedings of the Computer Games and Digital
Cultures Conference, edited by F. Mäyrä, 323–
330. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University
Press, 2002.
_____. Half Real: Video Games Between Real
Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2005.
_____. “Fear of Failing? The Many Meanings of
Difficulty in Video Games.” In The Video
Game Theory Reader 2, edited by M. J. P. Wolf
and B. Perron, 237–252. New York: Rout-
ledge, 2009.
_____. A Casual Revolution. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2010.
Kafai, Y. B., & Fields, D. A. “Stealing from
Grandma or Generating Cultural Knowledge?
Contestations and Effects of Cheats in a
Tween Virtual World.” In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2007 Conference — Situated Play, 1–
9. Tokyo, 2007.
Karriere Poker [Card Game]. Hexagames, 1988.
Katriel, T., and B. Danet, B. “No Two Alike:
Play and Aesthetics in Collecting.” In Inter-
preting Objects and Collections, edited by S.
M. Pearce, 220–239. London: Routledge,
1994.
Kaulfield, J. “Randomness, Player Choice and
Player Experience.” In Tabletop: Analog Game
Design, edited by G. Costikan and D. David-
son, et al., 24–29. ETC Press, 2011.
Kelley, J. A., and M. Lugo. The Little Giant Book
of Dominoes. New York: Sterling Publishing,
2003.
“Kennerspiel des Jahres.” Retrieved August 3,
2011, from http://www.spiel-des-jahres.com/
cms/front_content.php?idcat=180, 2011.
Kenson, S. “Marvel Super Heroes.” In Hobby
Games: The 100 Best, edited by J. Lowder,
196–199. Renton: Green Ronin, 2007.
Key, A. “Letters.” Sumo 5 (1991).
Keyaerts, P. Vinci [Board Game]. Descartes Edi-
teur, 1999.
Keys, S. “Settlers of Catan: How a German
243
Board Game Went Mainstream.” Retrieved
August 4, 2011, from http://www.theatlantic.
com/entertainment/archive/2011/06/settlers-
of-catan-how-a-german-board-game-went-
mainstream/239919/, 2011.
Kiesling, M., and W. Kramer. Raja: Palastbau
in Indien [Board Game]. Phalanx Games,
2004.
Kilgore, T. “Re: More Thoughts on Gamers vs.
Non-Gamers and Such.” Retrieved January
2, 2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.
com/article/455516#455516, 2005.
King, B. “Re: Non-Gamers Rate Boardgames
(Including Shogun, Modern Art)— Large Test
in Newspaper.” Retrieved March 14, 2009,
from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/arti
cle/2874369#2874369, 2008.
Kirschenbaum, M. “War Stories: Board Wargames
and (Vast) Procedural Narratives.” In Third
Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast Narra-
tives, edited by P. Harrigan and N. Wardrip-
Fruin, 357–372. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2009.
_____. “War, What Is It Good For? Learning
from Wargaming.” Retrieved August 24, 2011,
from http://www.playthepast.org/?p=1819,
2011.
Klamer, R. The Game of Life [Board Game].
Milton Bradley, 1960.
Klimmt, C., and T. Hartmann, T. “Effectance,
Self-Efficacy and the Motivation to Play
Video Games.” In Playing Video Games: Mo-
tives, Responses, and Consequences, edited by P.
Vorderer and J. Bryant, 133–146. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum, 2006.
Klimmt, C., A. Rizzo, P. Vorderer, J. Kock, and
T. Fischer. “Experimental Evidence for Sus-
pense as Determinant of Video Game Enjoy-
ment.” CyberPsycholog y and Behaviour 12, no.
1 (2009): 29–31.
Knizia, R. Goldrausch [Card Game]. Hans im
Glück, 1990.
_____. Modern Art [Board Game]. Hans im
Glück, 1992a.
_____. Quo Vadis [Board Game]. Amigo Spiele,
1992b.
_____. Auf Heller und Pfennig [Board Game].
Hans im Glück, 1994a.
_____. Flinke Pinke [Card Game]. Amigo
Spiele, 1994b.
_____. High Society [Card Game]. Ravens-
burger, 1995a.
_____. Medici [Board Game]. Amigo Spiele,
1995b.
_____. Euphrat and Tigris [Board Game]. Hans
im Glück, 1997a.
_____. Lost Cities [Card Game]. Kosmos,
1997b.
_____. Durch die Wüste [Board Game]. Kos-
mos, 1998a.
244 BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____. Samurai [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
1998b.
_____. Ra [Board Game]. Alea, 1999a.
_____. (Rheinländer [Board Game]. Hasbro
GMBH, 1999b.
_____. Stephenson’s Rocket [Board Game]. Pe-
gasus Spiele, 1999c.
_____. Dice Games Properly Explained. Reading:
Elliot Right Way, 1999d.
_____. Schotten Totten [Card Game]. Schmidt
Spiele, 1999e.
_____. Der Herr der Ringe [Board Game]. Kos-
mos, 2000a.
_____. Die Kaufleute von Amsterdam [Board
Game]. Jumbo, 2000b.
_____. Battle Line [Card Game]. GMT Games,
2000c.
_____. Tadsch Mahal [Board Game]. Alea, 2000d.
_____. Amon Ra [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
2003.
_____. Razzia! [Card Game]. Amigo Spiele,
2004a.
_____. “The Design and Testing of the Board
Game — Lord of the Rings.” In Rules of Play:
Game Design Fundamentals, edited by K.
Salen and E. Zimmerman, 22–27. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004b.
_____. Blue Moon [Card Game]. Kosmos, 2004c.
_____. Ra [Board Game]. Uberplay, 2005.
_____. Fits [Board Game]. Ravensberger, 2009a.
_____. Ra: The Dice Game [Board Game]. Aba-
cus, 2009b.
Kobbert, M. J. Das Verrückte Labyrinth [Board
Game]. Ravensburger, 1986.
_____. Das Labyrinth der Meister [Board
Game]. Ravensburger, 1991.
_____. Junior Labyrinth [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 1995.
_____. Labyrinth der Ringe [Board Game].
Ravensburger, 1998.
_____. Labyrinth: Das Kartenspiel [Card
Game]. Ravensburger, 2000.
_____. 3-D Labyrinth [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 2002.
_____. Lord of the Rings Labyrinth [Board
Game]. Ravensburger, 2003.
_____. Master Labyrinth [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 2007.
Kobra1. “Estimating CCP (Cost Per Play) of My
Collection.” Retrieved January 9, 2009, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/892
44, 2005.
Konzack, L. “Geek Culture: The 3rd Counter-
Culture.” Paper presented at the Fun and
Games Conference, Preston, UK. Retrieved
June 5, 2008, from http://www.scribd.com/
doc/270364/Geek-Culture-The-3rd-Coun
terCulture, 2006.
Koplow, J. Organized Crime [Board Game]. Ko-
plow Games, 1974.
Kosman, J. “Our Panel Plays, Grades the Board
Games of 2009.” Retrieved January 4, 2010,
from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/27/PK391ANHR1.DTL&t
ype=entertainment, 2009.
Kosnett, P. S. Titan Strike [Board Game]. Sim-
ulations Publications Inc., 1979.
_____. Helltank [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1981.
_____. Helltank Destroyer [Board Game].
Metagaming, 1982.
Koster, R. A Theory of Fun for Game Design.
Scottsdale: Paraglyph Press, 2005.
Krabbé, T. “Chess Records.” Retrieved October
9, 2009, from http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/
records/records.htm, 2009.
Kramer, W. Niki Lauda’s Formel 1 [Board Game].
Altenburger und Stralsunder Spielkarten-Fab-
riken, 1980.
_____. Das große Unternehmen Erdgas [Board
Game]. Information Erdgas, 1982.
_____. Heimlich and Co. [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 1984.
_____. Auf Achse [Board Game]. F.X. Schmidt,
1987.
_____. 6-Nimmt! [Card Game]. Amigo Spiele,
1994.
_____. Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix [Board
Game]. Mayfair, 1996a.
_____. Expedition [Board Game]. Ravensburger,
1996b.
_____. “The German Game Market.” The
Games Journal. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from
http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Ge
rmanGameMarket.shtml, 2000a.
_____. “What Is a Game?” The Games Journal.
Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.
thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatIsaGame.
shtml, 2000b.
_____. Wildlife [Board Game]. Uberplay, 2002.
Kramer, W., and J. P. Grunau. Cash [Card Game].
Ravensburger, 1990.
Kramer, W., and M. Kiesling. Tikal [Board
Game]. Ravensburger, 1999.
_____. Torres [Board Game]. Ravensburger,
2000a.
_____. Java [Board Game]. Ravensburger, 2000b.
Kramer, W., and U. Kramer. Wildlife Adventure
[Board Game]. Ravensburger, 1985.
Kramer, W., and H.-R. Rösner. Tycoon [Board
Game]. Jumbo, 1998.
Kramer, W., and R. Ulrich, R. El Grande [Board
Game]. Hans im Glück, 1995.
_____. Die Fürsten von Florenz [Board Game].
Alea, 2000.
Krause, M. R. Nicht-Digitale Spiele: über das
Medium, das Produkt und den Markt für
Nicht-Digitale Spiele in Deutschland. Unpub-
lished Master’s Thesis, University of Applied
Sciences, Hamburg, 2007.
 Bibliography
Kücklich, J. “Other Playings: Cheating in Com-
puter Games.” Paper presented at the Other
Players Conference, University of Copen-
hagen, 2004.
Lammes, S. “Approaching Game-Studies: To-
wards a Reflexive Methodology of Games as
Situated Cultures.” In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2007 Conference — Situated Play,
25–30. Tokyo, 2007.
Lamorisse, A. Risk [Board Game]. Parker Broth-
ers, 1959.
LankyEngineer. “Re: Largest BGG Collections.”
Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.
boardgamegeek.com/article/2590596#25905
96, 2008a.
_____. “Who the Hell Are You? (A Series of
Geek Polls).” Retrieved February 17, 2009, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/252
5352#2525352, 2008b.
Lanza, M. T. “Germany’s Game Plan.” Knuck-
lebones (November 2006): 20–23.
Lau, M. 18MY [Board Game]. Marcus Lau, 2006.
Launius, R. Arkham Horror [Board Game].
Chaosium, 1987.
Laws, R. D. Feng Shui [Role-playing Game].
Daedalus Entertainment, 1996.
Laws, R. D., and J. Garcia. Shadowfist [Card
Game]. Shadowfist Games, 1995.
Lazarus, M. Die Reize Des Spiels. Berlin: Fred
dummlers-Verlagsbuch-handlung, 1883.
Lazzaro, N. “Why We Play Games: Four Keys
to Emotion Without Story.” Paper presented
at the Game Developers Conference, San
Jose, CA, 2004.
Leacock, M. Pandemic [Board Game]. Z-Man
Games, 2008.
LeBlanc, M. “8kindsoffun.com.” Retrieved Sep-
tember 27, 2010, from http://www.8kindsof
fun.com/, 2005.
Lee, J. Zombies in my Pocket [Card Game].
Cambridge Games Factory, 2009a.
_____. “Re: Are You a Gamer Who Has Pub-
lished Since Joining the Geek?” Retrieved Jan-
uary 11, 2010, from http://boardgamegeek.
com/article/3076387#3076387, 2009b.
Lehmann, T. Race for the Galaxy [Card Game].
Rio Grande Games, 2007.
_____. Um Krone und Kragen [Board Game].
Amigo, 2006.
Lenarcic, J., and J. Mackay-Scollay. “Trading
Card Games as a Social Learning Tool.” Aus-
tralian Journal of Emerging Technologies and
Society 3, no. 2 (2005): 64–76.
Levy, L. “Borderlands.” Counter 7 (1999): 85–89.
_____. “Special K — Klaus Teuber.” The Games
Journal. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://
www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Special
K3.shtml, 2001a.
_____. “Special K — Reiner Knizia.” The Games
Journal. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://
245
www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Special
K4.shtml, 2001b.
_____. “Special K — Wolfgang Kramer.” The
Games Journal. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from
http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Sp
ecialK2.shtml, 2001c.
_____. “Re: Why I’m a Eurogamer.” Retrieved
May 4, 2008, from http://www.boardgame
geek.com/article/1377102#1377102, 2007.
Lewis, K. P. “Social Play in the Great Apes.” In
The Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans,
edited by A. D. Pellegrini and P. K. Smith,
27–53. New York: Guilford Press, 2005.
Liesching, T. Niagara [Board Game]. Zoch Ver-
lag, 2005.
Lipman, M. Point of Law [Board Game]. 3M,
1972.
Lowder, J. (ed.). Hobby Games: The 100 Best.
Seattle: Green Ronin, 2007a.
Lowder, J. “Interview with James Lowder, Edi-
tor of Hobby Games: The 100 Best.” Retrieved
May 4, 2010, from http://www.greenronin.
com/hg100_interview.html, 2007b.
Lowood, H. “Real-Time Performance: Machin-
ima and Game Studies.” The International
Digital Media and Arts Association Journal 2,
no. 1 (2005): 10–17.
Ludwig, M. Flußaufwärts [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 1988.
MacDonald, G., S. Peterson, B. Harlick, and R.
Greer. Champions [Role-playing Game].
Hero Games, 1981.
Macdonell, D., and R. Kent. X-Files [Card
Game]. US Playing Card Co., 1996.
Mackay, D. The Fantasy Role Playing Game: A
New Performing Art. Jefferson, NC: McFar-
land, 2001.
Mackay, H. (ed.). Consumption and Everyday
Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., 1997.
Manninen, T. “Rich Interaction in the Context
of Networked Virtual Environments — Expe-
riences Gained from the Multi-Player Games
Domain.” Paper presented at the HCI 2001
and IHM 2001 Conference, London, 2001.
Marks, A. Card Games Properly Explained. Read-
ing: Elliot Right Way, 1995.
Martin, P. Y., and B. A. Turner. “Grounded
Theory and Organizational Research.” The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22, no.
2 (1986): 141–157.
Mason, P. “In Search of the Self: A Survey of
the First 25 Years of Anglo American Role-
Playing Game Theory.” Paper presented at the
Solmukohta Conference, Helksinki, 2004.
Matheny, M. Gladiator [Board Game]. Avalon
Hill, 1981.
Matthäus, D., and F. Nestel. Ursuppe [Board
Game]. Doris and Frank, 1997.
McAllister, J. B., and D. A. Trampier. Titan
[Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1980.
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY
McCafferty, J. “Dear Santa: Sprechen Sie
Deutsch?” Retrieved April 28, 2008, from
http://www.drtoy.com/about_drtoy/sprechen.
html, 1999.
McMurchie, T. Tsuro [Board Game]. Kosmos,
2005.
McNeil, A. Kingmaker [Board Game]. Ariel/
Philmar, 1974.
_____. “The Making of Avalon Hill’s King-
maker.” Games and Puzzles 72 (Spring 1979).
Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://www.
diplom.org/~diparch/resources/other_games/
kingmaker.htm.
McQuillan, B., B. Glassco, M. Selinker, R.
Daviau, and T. Woodruff. Betrayal at House
on the Hill [Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 2004.
Meier, S. Sid Meier’s Civilization [Video Game].
Microprose, 1991.
Merrett, A., C. Johnson, E. Campbell, and A.
Morrison. Talisman: The Adventure [Board
Game Expansion]. Games Workshop, 1986.
Merrick, H. “‘We Was Cross-Dressing ’Afore
You Were Born!’ Or, How SF Fans Invented
Virtual Community.” Refractory: A Journal of
Entertainment Media 6 (2004): 1–10.
Mexican Rails [Board Game]. Mayfair Games,
1989.
Meyer, A. Mall World [Board Game]. Be-
Witched Spiele, 2004.
Miller, M. Traveller [Role-Playing Game].
Game Designers’ Workshop, 1977.
_____. “Re: Are We at the Start of a Resurgence
of Boardgame Popularity?” Retrieved Febru-
ary 13, 2009, from http://www.boardgame
geek.com/article/2762391#2762391, 2008.
Miller, R. Milton Bradley. Farmington, MI:
Greenhaven Press, 2004.
Mitchell, R. G. “Sociological Implications of the
Flow Experience.” In Optimal Experience: Psy-
chological Studies of the Flow State in Con-
sciousness, 36–59. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 1988.
Mixon, K. “Re : Giving Up on Games Too
Quickly.” Retrieved March 14, 2008, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/453
516#453516, 2005.
Mogendorff, J. J. Stratego [Board Game]. Mil-
ton Bradley, 1947.
Mona, E. “From the Basement to the Basic Set:
The Early Years of Dungeons and Dragons.”
In Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in
Games and Playable Media, edited by P. Har-
rigan and N. Wardrip-Fruin, 25–30. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press, 2007.
Monopoly—Spiderman 3 Edition [Board Game].
Hasbro Inc., 2007.
Monopoly — SpongeBob Squarepants Edition
[Board Game]. Hasbro Inc., 2005.
Monopoly — Transformers Collector’s Edition
[Board Game]. Hasbro Inc., 2007.
Montola, M., and J. Stenros (eds.). Beyond Role
and Play: Tools, Toys and Theory for Harnessing
the Imagination. Retrieved March 5, 2007,
from http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/brap.pdf,
2004.
Moon, A. R. Black Spy [Card Game]. Avalon
Hill, 1981.
_____. Airlines [Board Game]. Abacus, 1990a.
_____. Gespenster [Card Game]. Hexagames,
1990b.
_____. Wer Hat Mehr? [Card Game]. Piatnik,
1990c.
_____. Elfenroads [Board Game]. White Wind,
1992.
_____. Elfenland [Board Game]. Amigo Spiele,
1998.
_____. Union Pacific [Board Game]. Amigo,
1999.
_____. Ticket to Ride [Board Game]. Days of
Wonder, 2004a.
_____. Ticket to Ride: Mystery Train Expansion
[Board Game Expansion]. Days of Wonder,
2004b.
_____. Ticket to Ride: Europe [Board Game].
Days of Wonder, 2005.
_____. Ticket to Ride: Märklin Edition [Board
Game]. Days of Wonder, 2006.
_____. Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries [Board
Game]. Days of Wonder, 2007a.
_____. Ticket to Ride : Switzerland [Board
Game Expansion]. Days of Wonder, 2007b.
_____. Ticket to Ride: The Card Game [Card
Game]. Days of Wonder, 2008a.
_____. Ticket to Ride : The Dice Expansion
[Board Game Expansion]. Days of Wonder,
2008b.
_____. Ticket to Ride: The Dice Game [Dice
Game]. Days of Wonder, 2008c.
Moon, A. R., and B. Faidutti. Diamant [Board
Game]. Schmidt Spiele, 2005.
Morgan, R. La-Trel [Board Game]. ASS (Al-
tenburger und Stralsunder Spielkarten-Fab-
riken), 1994.
Moromisato, G., A. Shubert, D. Collins, I.
Schrieber, C. Davis, C., and M. Holden.
Chron X [Video Game]. Darkened Sky Stu-
dios, 1997.
Morrow, P., and E. Friedman, E. Talisman City
[Board Game Expansion]. Games Workshop,
1989.
_____. Talisman Dragons [Board Game Expan-
sion]. Games Workshop., 1993.
Mortensen, T. E. Pleasures of the Player: Flow
and Control in Online Games. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bergen,
Bergen, 2003.
Mosca, R. Sauron [Board Game]. Simulations
Publications Inc., 1977.
Mscrivner. “Re: To Game or Metagame?” Re-
trieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.board
 Bibliography
gamegeek.com/article/2866037#2866037,
2008.
Muller, L. “Is Hasbro’s Cash Cow Being Led to
the Slaughter?” Retrieved October 4, 2009,
from http://www.toydirectory.com/monthly/
article.asp?id=3680, 2009.
Müller, W. Favoriten [Board Game]. Walter
Müller’s Spielewerkstatt, 1989.
Mulligan, J. “Cosmic Encounters from the Old
Days.” Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://
www.skotos.net/articles/BTH_24.shtml,
2002.
“Münchner Spielwies’n.” Retrieved June 14,
2008, from http://www.spielwiesn.de/, 2008.
Murray, H. J. R. A History of Board-Games Other
Than Chess. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1952.
Murray, J. H. Hamlet on the Holodeck —The Fu-
ture of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge
MA: MIT Press, 1997.
_____. “The More We Talk, the Smarter We
Get: The Conversation Between Game De-
signers and Researchers.” Retrieved Septem-
ber 19, 2003, from http://www.igda.org/colu
mns/ivorytower/ivory_Jun03.php, 2003.
_____. “The Last Word on Ludology v Narra-
tology in Game Studies.” In Proceedings of
the DiGRA 2005 Conference : Changing
Views — Worlds in Play, Vancouver, 2005.
Myers, D. “Computer Game Genres.” Play and
Culture 3 (1990): 286–301.
_____. The Nature of Computer Games: Play as
Semiosis. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.
Nader, L. Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry
into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. New
York: Routledge, 1996.
Nettles, M. T., and C. M. Millett. Three Magic
Letters. Baltimore: John Hopkins University,
2006.
Newman, J. “In Search of the Video Game
Player.” New Media and Society 4, no. 3 (2002):
405–422.
Niles, D. Onslaught : D-Day to the Rhine
[Board Game]. TSR, 1987.
_____. The Hunt for Red October [Board
Game]. TSR, 1988.
Nixon, C. R. Donjon [Role-Playing Game].
Anvilwerks, 2002.
North American Rails [Board Game]. Mayfair
Games, 1992.
Odenhoven, T. Portobello Market [Board
Game]. Schmidt Spiele, 2007.
Ohley, H., and A. Romoth, A. 1895 Namibia
[Board Game]. Helumt Ohley and Adam Ro-
moth, 2005.
Oker, E. “Eugene Oker.” Retrieved May 1,
2009, from http://www.eugen-oker.de/, 2004.
Olotka, P. “Risk.” In Family Games: The 100
Best, edited by J. Lowder, 283–285. Seattle:
Green Ronin, 2010.
247
Onanien, R. Facts in Five [Board Game]. 3M,
1967.
Orbanes, P. E. The Game Makers: The Story of
Parker Brothers, from Tiddledy Winks to Trivial
Pursuit. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2003.
_____. Monopoly: The World’s Most Famous
Game — and How It Got That Way. New York:
Da Capo Press, 2007.
Ornella, E. Il Principe [Board Game]. Amigo
Spiele, 2005.
Ortega-Grimaldo, F. Games as Cultural Practice:
Postcolonial Imaginations. Unpublished Doc-
toral Dissertation, Texas Tech University,
2008.
Owen, S. “The History of Wargaming 1975–
1990.” Strateg y and Tactics ( July 1990).
Paglieri, F. “Frame Games: The Role of Context
in Defining Play Behavior.” Retrieved De-
cember 27, 2008, from http://www.media.
unisi.it/cirg/fp/frames03.pdf, 2003a.
_____. “Modelling Play: Towards a Cognitive
Model for Playful Activities.” Retrieved Jan-
uary 4, 2009, from http://www.media.unisi.
it/cirg/fp/mopl03.pdf, 2003b.
_____. “Playing by and with the Rules: Norms
and Morality in Play Development.” Topio 24
(2005): 149–167.
Palesch, K. Fossil [Board Game]. Goldsieber,
1998.
Palmer, N. The Comprehensive Guide to Board
Wargaming. New York: Hippocrene, 1977.
_____. The Best of Board Wargaming. New York:
Hippocrene, 1980.
Palmer, R., and W. Lee. Totopoly [Board Game].
Waddingtons, 1938.
Parks, A., and J. Hawkins. Parthenon: Rise of
the Aegean [Board Game]. Z-Man Games,
2005.
Parlett, D. Hare and Tortoise [Board Game].
Intellect Games, 1973.
_____. Hase und Ingel [Board Game]. Ravens-
burger, 1979.
_____. The Oxford History of Board Games. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
_____. The Penguin Encyclopedia of Card Games.
London: Penguin, 2000.
Patrick, G. T. W. The Psycholog y of Relaxation.
New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1916.
Pauchon, S. Yspahan [Board Game]. Ystari, 2006.
Payne, B. Villa Paletti [Board Game]. Zoch Ver-
lag, 2001.
Pearce, C. “Theory Wars: An Argument Against
Arguments in the So-Called Ludology/Nar-
ratology Debate.” Paper presented at the
DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views—
Worlds in Play, Vancouver, 2005.
_____. “Communities of Play: The Social Con-
struction of Identity in Persistent Online
Game Worlds.” In Second Person: Role-Playing
248 BIBLIOGRAPHY
and Story in Games and Playable Media, edited
by N. Wardrip-Fruin and P. Harrigan, 311–
318. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
Pedlow, S. “20 Copies of Ravensburger’s Wildlife
Adventure Found!” Retrieved August 2, 2007,
from http://groups.google.com/group/rec.
games.board/tree/browse_frm/month/1993-
06/ef8a536982cfccbd?rnum=91&_done=%2
Fgroup%2Frec.games.board%2Fbrowse_frm
%2Fmonth%2F1993-06%3Ff w c%3D2%
26#doc_99a4027af6eb8ab5, 1993.
Peitz, J., D. Eriksson, and S. Björk. “Augmented
Board Games — Enhancing Board Games
with Electronics.” In Proceedings of the
DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views—
Worlds in Play, Vancouver, 2005.
Pellis, S. “Keeping in Touch: Play Fighting and
Social Knowledge.” In The Cognitive Animal,
edited by M. Bekoff, C. Allen, and G. M.
Burghardt, 421–427. Cambridge: MIT Press,
2002.
Pellis, S. M., and V. C. Pellis. “Structure-Func-
tion Interface in the Analysis of Play Fight-
ing.” In Animal Play: Evolutionary, Compar-
ative, and Ecological Perspectives, edited by M.
Bekoff and J. A. Byers, 115–140). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Perla, P. The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Pro-
fessionals and Hobbyists. Annapolis: Naval In-
stitute Press, 1990.
Perrin, S., R. Turney, S. Henderson, W. James,
and G. Stafford. Runequest [Role-Playing
Game]. Chaosium, 1978.
Peterschmidt, L., and R. Miller, R. Warhammer
40,000 Collectible Card Game [Card Game].
Sabertooth Games, 2001.
Petersen, C. T. Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
[Board Game]. Fantasy Flight Games, 2005.
Peterson, S. Call of Cthulhu [Role-playing
Game]. Chaosium, 1981.
Petty, M. “Destroying Some Common Myths
About Game Design.” Retrieved February 12,
2008, from http://www.protospiel.org/, 2006.
Pokémon [Card Game]. Wizards of the Coast,
1999.
Pollard, E. J. “Re: The Metagame (Again?).” Re-
trieved January 2, 2009, from http://www.
boardgamegeek.com/article/2952291#29522
91, 2008.
Pondsmith, M. “Traveller.” In Hobby Games:
The 100 Best, edited by J. Lowder, 331–334.
Renton: Green Ronin, 2007.
Pope, J. Border Reivers [Board Game]. Reiver
Games, 2006.
_____. “Re: Are You a Gamer Who Has Pub-
lished Since Joining the Geek?” Retrieved Jan-
uary 6, 2010, from http://boardgamegeek.
com/article/3078326#3078326, 2009.
Pope, J., and T. Cheatham, T. Carpe Astra
[Board Game]. Reiver Games, 2008.
Pratt, A. E. Clue [Board Game]. Waddingtons,
1948.
Pratt, F. Fletcher Pratt’s Naval War Game. Hol-
land MI, Lake Shore Press, 1943.
Pritchard, D. (ed.). The Games and Puzzles Book
of Modern Board Games. London: William
Luscombe, 1975.
Pulsipher, L. Valley of the Four Winds [Board
Game]. Games Workshop, 1980.
_____. Britannia [Board Game]. Gibsons
Games, 1986.
_____. “The Essence of Euro-Style Games.” The
Games Journal. Retrieved March 18, 2008,
from http://thegamesjournal.com/articles/Ess
ence.shtml, 2006.
_____. “Interaction in Games.” Retrieved Jan-
uary 4, 2010, from http://pulsiphergamedes
ign.blogspot.com/2009/11/interaction-in-gam
es_08.html, 2009a.
_____. “The System and the Psychological in
Games.” Retrieved October 14, 2010, from
http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com/20
09/05/system-and-psychological-in-games.
html, 2009b.
Quinto [Board Game]. 3M, 1964.
Randles, P., and D. Stahl. Piratenbucht [Board
Game]. Amigo Spiele, 2002.
Randolph, A. Twixt [Board Game]. 3M, 1961.
_____. Oh-Wah-Ree [Board Game]. 3M, 1962.
_____. Breakthru [Board Game]. 3M, 1965.
_____. Mad Mate [Board Game]. 3M, 1972.
_____. Hol’s der Geier [Card Game]. Ravens-
berger, 1988.
_____. Rasende Roboter [Board Game]. Hans
im Glück, 1999.
Randolph, A., and M. Matchoss. Sagaland
[Board Game]. Ravensburger, 1981.
Rasmussen, M. M. Top Secret [Role-playing
Game]. Tactical Studies Rules, 1980.
Ray, D. Sticks and Stones [Board Game]. Meta-
gaming, 1978.
Redhead, S. (ed.). Rave Off!: Politics and De-
viance in Contemporary Youth Culture. Brook-
field: Ashgate Publishing, 1993.
Rein-Hagen, M. Vampire : The Masquerade
[Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf, 1991.
_____. Werewolf: The Apocalypse [Role-Play-
ing Game]. White Wolf, 1992.
Rein-Hagen, M., A. Bates, P. Brucato, K. Cliffe,
G. Fountain, E. Hall, et al. Hunter: The Reck-
oning [Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf,
1999.
Rein-Hagen, M., S. Chupp, and J. Hartshorn.
Wraith: The Oblivion [Role-Playing Game].
White Wolf, 1994.
Rein-Hagen, M., S. Chupp, I. Lemke, and J. G.
Timbrook. Changeling : The Dreaming
[Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf, 1995.
Rein-Hagen, M., G. Davis, T. Dowd, C. Cow-
art, D. Bassingthwaite, S. P. Somtow, et al.
 Bibliography
Mind’s Eye Theatre: The Masquerade [Live
Action Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf,
1993.
Richardson, T. The Dragon and the Pearl [Board
Game]. Spirit Games, 2004.
Riedesser, W. Ave Caesar [Board Game]. Ravens-
berger, 1999.
_____. Q-Jet 21XX [Board Game]. Möbius
Games, 2005.
Rieneck, M., and S. Stadler. Die Säulen der Erde
[Board Game]. Kosmos, 2006.
Roberts, C. S. Tactics [Board Game]. Avalon
Game Company, 1954.
_____. Gettysburg [Board Game]. Avalon Hill,
1958a.
_____. Dispatcher [Board Game]. Avalon Hill,
1958b.
_____. D-Day [Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1961.
Roberts, C. S., and Nissen Thiem. Verdict
[Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1959a.
Roberts, J. M., M. Arth, and R. Bush. “Games
in Culture.” American Anthropologist 61, no.
4 (1959b): 597–605.
Roberts, K. Contemporary Society and the Growth
of Leisure. London: Longmans, 1978.
Rodriguez, H. “The Playful and the Serious: An
Approximation to Huizinga’s Homo Ludens.”
Game Studies: The International Journal of
Computer Game Research 6, no. 1 (2006).
Rosen, T. “Tom Rosen: Joe and Bob.” Retrieved
May 4, 2010, from http://www.boardgame
news.com/index.php/boardgamenews/com
ments/tom_rosen_joe_and_bob/, 2009.
Rosenberg, U. Bohnanza [Card Game]. Amigo
Spiele, 1997.
_____. Mamma Mia [Card Game]. Aba-
cusspiele, 1999.
_____. Agricola [Board Game]. Lookout Games,
2007.
_____. Le Havre [Board Game]. Lookout
Games, 2008.
Rösner, H.-R., and W. Kramer, W. El Capitan
[Board Game]. Z-Man Games, 2007.
Ross, R. Haithabu [Board Game]. Hexagames,
1975.
Rossney, B. “Re : The Golden Age of Board
Games.” Retrieved March 4, from http://
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.board/m
sg/7568055773869cf1, 1993.
_____. “McMulti.” The Games Cabinet. Re-
trieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.game
cabinet.com/reviews/McMulti.html, 1994.
Rousseau, J. J. The Social Contract or Principles
of Political Right (2008 edition, translated by
G. D. H. Cole). New York: Cosimo, 1762.
Rowland, H., and G. Pinder, G. Days of Deci-
sion III [Board Game]. Australian Design
Group, 2004.
Roznai, J., and L. Roznai. Nippon Rails [Board
Game]. Mayfair Games, 1992.
249
Roznai, L. Australian Rails [Board Game]. May-
fair Games, 1994.
Russell, S. “Re : The Abject Failure That Is
Called ‘Gateway.’” Retrieved February 3,
2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
article/2476132#2476132, 2008.
Saari, M. “Making Decisions.” The Games Jour-
nal. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://
www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Making
Decisions.shtml, 2003.
Sackson, S. Acquire [Board Game]. 3M, 1962.
_____. Focus [Board Game]. Parker Brothers,
1964.
_____. Bazaar [Board Game]. 3M, 1967.
_____. A Gamut of Games. London: Random
House, 1969.
_____. Executive Decision [Board Game]. 3M,
1971.
Sager, M. Highlander TCG [Card Game].
Thunder Castle Games, 1996.
Salen, K., and E. Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play:
Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2004.
St. Laurent, J. J. Crude: The Oil Game [Board
Game]. St. Laurent Games, 1974.
Sandercock, C., and R. A. Martin. Maharaja
[Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1994.
Sarrett, P. “Games from Europe.” Retrieved May
7, 2007, from http://groups.google.com/gro
up/rec.games.board/browse_frm/month/1993
-8?start=500&sa=N, 1993.
Sauer, N. Email Interview, 2008.
Scattergories [Board Game]. Milton Bradley,
1988.
Schacht, M. Kardinal & König [Board Game].
Goldsieber, 2000.
_____. Coloretto [Card Game]. Abacus Spiele,
2003a.
_____. Industria [Board Game]. Queen, 2003b.
_____. Zooloretto [Board Game]. Abacus
Spiele, 2007.
_____. Zooloretto [Video Game]. Spinbottle
Games, 2009.
Schafer, J. Civilization V [Video Game]. Firaxis
Games, 2010.
Schell, J. The Art of Game Design: A Book of
Lenses. Burlington MA: Morgan Kaufmann,
2008.
Scherer-Hoock, B. “Evolution of German
Games.” The Games Journal. Retrieved June
8, 2007, from http://www.thegamesjournal.
com/articles/GermanHistory2.shtml, 2003.
Schiller, F. On the Aesthetic Education of Man In
a Series of Letters (translated by R. Snell). New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.
Schlickbernd, J. “Review of Die Macher
(LONG).” Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.board/b
rowse_thread/thread/e03443f 2827dd669,
1989.
250 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Schloesser, G. Email Interview, 2008a.
_____. “International Gamers Awards.” Re-
trieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.in
ternationalgamersawards.net/, 2008b.
_____. “The Gamers’ Place of Pilgrimage.”
Knucklebones (March 2008c): 30–33.
Schmeil, K.-H. Die Macher [Board Game].
Moskito, 1986.
_____. Tyranno Ex [Board Game]. Moskito, 1990.
_____. Extrablatt [Board Game]. Moskito, 1991.
Schwarz, H. “History of the Nuremberg Toy
Trade and Industry.” Retrieved May 8, 2008,
from http://www.musee-du-jouet.com/eu
rope/nurembergang.doc, 2003.
Schwarz, H., and M. Faber. Games We Play: His-
tory of J.W. Spear and Sons. Nuremberg: Verlag
W. Tummels, 1997.
Sciarra, E. Bang! [Card Game]. Abacus Spiele,
2002.
Seay, D., J. Zinser, and D. Williams. Legend of
the Five Rings [Card Game]. Alderac Enter-
tainment Group, 1995.
Seldner, D. “Games Owned but Not Played.
How Many?” Retrieved January 9, 2010, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/295
9403#2959403, 2009.
Seyfarth, A. Manhattan [Board Game]. Hans im
Glück, 1994.
_____. Puerto Rico [Board Game]. Alea, 2002.
_____. San Juan [Card Game]. Alea, 2004.
_____. Giganten der Lüfte [Board Game]. Queen,
2007.
Seyfarth, A., and K. Seyfarth. Thurn and Taxis
[Board Game]. Hans im Glück, 2006.
Shapiro, D. “To Boldly Go.” The Games Journal.
Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.
thegamesjournal.com/articles/ToBoldlyGo.sh
tml, 2003.
Sharpe, R. “The Game of Diplomacy.” Re-
trieved February 14, 2007, from http://www.
diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm, 1978.
Shaw, T., and L. Schutz. Waterloo [Board
Game]. Avalon Hill, 1962.
Sherry, J. L. “Flow and Media Enjoyment.”
Communication Theory 14, no. 4 (2004): 328–
347.
Siggins, M. “Editorial.” Sumo 0 (1989).
_____. “Inside Pitch.” Sumo 2 (1990).
_____. “Die Siedler von Catan.” Sumo 23 (1995).
_____. “Review: The Oxford History of Board
Games.” Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://
www.gamecabinet.com/reviews/OxfordHisto
ryBoardGames.html, 2000.
Sigman, T. “Pawn Takes Megabyte.” The Es-
capist. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://
www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/is
sues/issue_105/783-Pawn-Takes-Megabyte,
2007.
Simonitch, M. Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
[Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1996.
Simonsen, R. A. StarForce Alpha Centauri: In-
terstellar Conflict in the 25th Century [Board
Game]. Simulations Publications Inc., 1974.
_____. Battle Fleet Mars [Board Game]. Simu-
lations Publications Inc., 1977.
_____. Star Trader [Board Game]. Simulations
Publications Inc., 1982.
Simonsen, R. A., and J. F. Dunnigan. War in
the East [Board Game]. Simulations Publica-
tions Inc., 1974.
Simonsen, R. A., and B. Hessel. Dragonslayer
[Board Game]. Simulations Publications Inc.,
1981.
Smith, E. L. The Sword and the Stars [Board
Game]. Simulations Publications Inc., 1981.
Smith, J. New Orleans Beat. New York : Ivy
Books, 1995.
Smith, L. Dragon Dice [Dice Game]. Tactical
Studies Rules, 1995b.
Smith, P. K. “Play Fighting and Real Fighting:
Perspectives on Their Relationship.” In New
Aspects of Human Etholog y, edited by A.
Schmitt, K. Atzwanger, K. Grammer, and K.
Schäfer, 47–64. New York : Plenum Press,
1997.
Sniderman, S. “Unwritten Rules.” The Life of
Games. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://
www.gamepuzzles.com/tlog/tlog2.htm, 1999.
Snyder, M. Dust Devils [Role-Playing Game].
Chimera Creative, 2002.
Soares, J. Russian Rails [Board Game]. Mayfair
Games, 2004.
Solitander, N. “Re: I Don’t Get Game Publisher
Economics. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/289
2045#2892045, 2008.
Solko, D. “Re: Competitive Gaming.” Retrieved
January 14, 2010, from http://www.board
gamegeek.com/article/581424#581424, 2005.
Solomon, E. Sigma File [Board Game]. Condor,
1973.
_____. Thoughtwave [Board Game]. Intellect
Games, 1974.
Speier, M. “The Adult Ideological Viewpoint in
Studies of Childhood.” In Rethinking Child-
hood: Perspectives on Development and Society,
edited by A. Skolnick, 168–186. Boston: Little
Brown, 1976.
Spellfire [Card Game]. Tactical Studies Rules,
1994.
Spencer, A. “Why Hobby Gamers Don’t Like
Monopoly.” Retrieved February 10, 2009,
from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/arti
cle/2527728#2527728, 2008.
Spencer, H. The Principles of Psycholog y. London:
Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans,
1855.
“Spiel des Jahres.” Retrieved June 8, 2008, from
http://www.spiel-des-jahres.com/cms/fro
nt_content.php?idcat=33, 2008.
 Bibliography
“Spieleautorenzunft e.V.” Retrieved May 8,
2008, from http://www.spieleautorenzunft.
de/englisch/verein/index.html, 2008.
“Spielefest.” Retrieved June 14, 2008, from
http://www.spielefest.at/, 2008.
“Spielen in Österreich.” Retrieved May 9, 2008,
from http://www.spiel-der-spiele.at/, 2008.
“Spielwarenmesse International Toy Fair.” Re-
trieved May 2, 2008, from http://nuremberg
toyfair.com, 2008.
Stam, R. Film Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Staupe, R. David and Goliath [Card Game]. Pe-
gasus Spiele, 1998.
Stebbins, Robert A. Amateurs, Professionals, and
Serious Leisure. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1992.
Steinkuehler, C. Cognition and Learning in Mas-
sively Multiplayer Online Games: A Critical
Approach. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2005.
Stepponat, L. Die Rückkehr der Helden [Board
Game]. Pegasus Spiele, 2003.
_____. “Re: Everything I DIDN’T Get from
First Reading of the Rules, and the Clarifica-
tions I Got Later.” Retrieved January 4, 2009,
from http://boardgamegeek.com/article/215
6581#2156581, 2008.
Stern, A., and M. Mateas. “Interaction and Nar-
rative.” In The Game Design Reader: A Rules
of Play Antholog y, 642–666. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2007.
Stevens, V. Participatory Simulations: Building
Collaborative Understanding Through Immer-
sive Dynamic Modelling. Unpublished Mas-
ter’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, 1998.
Stewart, I. Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics
of Chaos. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989.
Stöckmann, B., and J. Jahnke, J. “Germany — a
Ludorado: An Introduction to the German
Board Game Market and the Possibilities It Of-
fers.” Homo communicativus 2, no. 4 (2008a).
_____. “Playing by the Book : Literature and
Board Games at the Beginning of the 21st
Century.” Homo communicativus 3, no. 5
(2008b).
Stocks and Bonds [Board Game]. 3M, 1964.
Stolze, G., and A. Tinworth. Demon: The Fallen
[Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf, 2002.
Stribula, M. R. Lunar Rails [Board Game].
Mayfair Games, 2003.
“Süddeutsche Spielemesse.” Retrieved June 14,
2008, from http://cms.messe-stuttgart.de/cms/
spiele-start0.0.html, 2008.
Suits, B. “What Is a Game?” Philosophy of Science
34, no. 2 (1967): 148–156.
_____. The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia.
Toronto: Broadview Press, 1978.
Sutton-Smith, B. The Ambiguity of Play. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
251
Sutton-Smith, B., and E. M. Avedon, E. M. “In-
troduction.” In The Study of Games. New
York: John Wiley, 1971a.
_____. The Study of Games. New York : John
Wiley, 1971b.
Sutton-Smith, B., and R. E. Herron. Child’s
Play. New York: John Wiley, 1971.
Svitavsky, W. L. “Geek Culture: An Annotated
Interdisciplinary Bibliography.” The Bulletin
of Bibliography 58, no. 2 (2001): 101–108.
Sweetster, P., and P. Wyeth. “Game Flow: A
Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in
Games.” Computers in Entertainment 3, no. 3
(2005): Article 3A.
Szwarce, H. Image [Board Game]. 3M, 1973.
Takahashi, K. Yu-Gi-Oh! [Card Game]. Upper
Deck Entertainment, 2002.
Tam, P.-W. “An Old School Board Game Goes
Viral Among Silicon Valley’s Techie Crowd.”
Retrieved January 9, 2010, from http://on-
line.wsj.com/article/SB12609228927569282
5.html, 2009.
Taylor, C. B., and J. B. Wood. Machiavelli
[Board Game]. Battleline, 1977.
Taylor, R. Rivets [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1977.
_____. Black Hole [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1978.
Taylor, S. C. Wooden Ships and Iron Men
[Board Game]. Battleline, 1975.
_____. Platoon [Board Game]. Avalon Hill,
1986.
_____. Gettysburg —125th Anniversary Edition
[Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1988.
Taylor, T. L. Play Between Worlds: Exploring On-
line Game Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press,
2006.
Tepper, S. “SDJ by the Numbers.” Retrieved
March 9, 2008, from http://www.boardgame
news.com/index.php/boardgamenews/com
ments/scott_tepper_sdj_by_the_numbers/,
2007.
Teuber, K. Barbarossa [Board Game]. Altenburger
und Stralsunder, 1988.
_____. Timberland [Board Game]. HABA,
1989.
_____. Adel Verpflichtet [Board Game]. F.X.
Schmidt, 1990a.
_____. By Hook or Crook [Board Game].
Avalon Hill, 1990b.
_____. Fair Means or Foul [Board Game]. Gib-
sons Games, 1990c.
_____. Drunter and Drüber [Board Game].
Hans im Glück, 1991.
_____. Der Fliegende Holländer [Board Game].
BanDai, 1992.
_____. Die Siedler von Catan [Board Game].
Kosmos, 1995.
_____. Entdecker [Board Game]. Goldsieber,
1996.
252 BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____. Löwenherz [Board Game]. Goldsieber,
1998.
_____. Die Sternenfahrer von Catan [Board
Game]. Kosmos, 1999.
_____. The Settlers of Zarahemla [Board
Game]. Inspiration Games, 2003.
_____. Hoity Toity [Board Game]. Überplay,
2004.
_____. Catan [Video Game]. Big Huge Games,
2007a.
_____. Die Siedler von Catan: Das Würfelspiel
[Board Game], Kosmos, 2007b.
Thai, K. “Board Games Are Back.” Retrieved
September 4, 2009, from http://money.cnn.
com/2009/07/10/news/economy/board_game
s_resurgence.fortune/, 2009.
Thayer, A., and B. Kolko. “Localization of Dig-
ital Games: The Process of Blending for the
Global Games Market.” Technical Communi-
cation 51, no. 4 (2004): 477–488.
Thibault, F. Ploy [Board Game]. 3M, 1970.
_____. Contigo [Board Game]. 3M, 1974.
Thompson, H. Chitin: I [Board Game]. Meta-
gaming, 1977a.
_____. Warp War [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1977b.
_____. Starleader: Assault! [Board Game]. Meta-
gaming, 1982.
Tidwell, K. “An Interview with Alan R. Moon.”
The Game Cabinet. Retrieved March 4, 2008,
from http://www.gamecabinet.com/news/
AlanMoonInterview.html, 1997.
_____. Email Interview, 2008.
Toncar, W. 6-Tage Rennen [Board Game].
Holtmann VIP, 1986.
Tresham, F. 1829 [Board Game]. Hartland Tre-
foil Ltd., 1974.
_____. Civilization [Board Game]. Hartland
Trefoil Ltd., 1980.
_____. (Civilization Expansion Trade Cards Set
[Board Game Expansion]. Avalon Hill, 1982.
_____. 1830: The Game of Railroads and Rob-
ber Barons [Board Game]. Avalon Hill, 1986.
_____. Civilization Western Expansion Map
[Board Game Expansion]. Hartland Trefoil
Ltd., 1988.
Tresham, F., and M. Meier-Backl. 1835 [Board
Game]. Hans im Glück, 1990.
A Trip Around the World [Board Game]. Otto
Maier Publishing Company, 1884.
Tsao, V. Junta [Board Game]. Creative Wargames
Workshop, 1978.
Tweet, J., A. Forsythe, R. Baker, P. Barclay, and
D. Low. Axis and Allies Miniatures [Col-
lectible Miniatures Game]. Avalon Hill, 2005.
Tweet, J., and M. Rein-Hagen. Ars Magica
[Role-playing Game]. Lion Rampant, 1987.
“2008 Sales, Demographic and Usage Data: Es-
sential Facts about the Computer and Video
Game Industry.” Retrieved January 5, 2009,
from http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ES
A_EF_2008.pdf, 2008.
Tychsen, A., K. Newman, T. Brolund, M.
Hitchens. “Cross-Format Analysis of the
Gaming Experience in Multi-Player Role-
Playing Games.” In Proceedings of the DiGRA
2007 Conference—Situated Play, 49–57. Tokyo,
2007.
Uherske, C. “Things I’m Sick Of !” Retrieved
December 14, 2009, from http://boardgame
geek.com/geeklist/10104, 2005.
Urack, D. Traber Derby Spiel [Board Game].
BURK-Verlag, 1989.
“U.S. Census Bureau, Male, 18 or Older, Em-
ployed Full-Time Year Round, 2005.” Re-
trieved February 15th, 2009, from http://pub
db3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new02
_037.htm, 2006.
Vaccarino, D. X. Dominion [Card Game]. Rio
Grande Games, 2008.
Varney, W. “Playing with ‘War Fare.’” Peace Re-
view: A Journal of Social Justice 12, no. 3
(2000): 385–391.
Van Ness, C. Sorry! Sliders [Board Game].
Parker Brothers, 2008.
Van Ness, C., R. Daviau, and S. Baker. Heroscape
[Collectible Miniatures Game]. Hasbro Inc.,
2004.
Van Zandt, A. “Re: Monopoly: A Review with
Strategic Discussion.” Retrieved February 10,
2009, from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
article/3021066#3021066, 2009.
Vasel, T. “Interviews by an Optimist #73 —
Wolfgang Kramer.” Retrieved February 12,
2008, from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
thread/82783, 2005a.
_____. “Interviews by an Optimist #46 — Peter
Olotka.” Retrieved February 14, 2008, from
http://www.thedicetower.com/thedicetower/i
ndex.php?page=614, 2005b.
_____. “Interviews by an Optimist #14 — Mike
Siggins.” Retrieved March 4, 2008, from
http://www.thedicetower.com/thedicetower/i
ndex.php?page=582, 2005c.
_____. “Interviews by an Optimist #38 — Rob
Daviau.” Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.thedicetower.com/thedicetower/i
ndex.php?page=606, 2005d.
_____. “Interviews by an Optimist #32 — Scott
Alden.” Retrieved April 23, 2009, from
http://www.thedicetower.com/interviews/int
032.htm, 2005e.
Vasel, T., P. Sauberer, S. Appelcline, J. Little, L.
Levy, M. Dontanville, et al. “Musings on Kib-
itzing.” Retrieved August 25, 2008, from
http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/
boardgamenews/comments/musings_on_kib
itzing_27/, 2006.
Vasey, C. Chariot Lords [Board Game]. Clash
of Arms Games, 1999.
 Bibliography
Verbeten, S. “Making the Cut.” Knucklebones
( January 2007): 30–32.
Verenikina, I., P. Harris, and P. Lysaght. “Child’s
Play: Computer Games, Theories of Play and
Children’s Development.” Paper presented at
the Young Children and Learning Technolo-
gies. Selected papers from the International
Federation for Information Processing Work-
ing Group 3.5 Open Conference, Melbourne,
2003.
Vorderer, P. “Interactive Entertainment and Be-
yond.” In Media Entertainment, edited by D.
Zillman and P. Vorderer, 21–37. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum, 2000.
Vorderer, P., T. Hartmann, and C. Klimmt. “Ex-
plaining the Enjoyment of Playing Video
Games: The Role of Competition.” Paper
presented at the Second International Con-
ference on Entertainment Computing, Pitts-
burgh, PA, 2003.
Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and language, Second
Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962.
_____. “Play and Its Role in the Mental Devel-
opment of the Child.” In Play: Its Role in De-
velopment and Evolution, edited by J. S. Bruner,
A. Jolly, and K. Sylva, 537–554. Aylesbury:
Penguin, 1976.
Walczyk, T. StarSoldier [Board Game]. Simula-
tions Publications Inc., 1977.
Walker, B. “Essen Games Fair.” Games Interna-
tional 2 (1988).
_____. “Interview with Wolfgang Kramer.
Games International 13 (1989).
Wallace, M. Way Out West [Board Game]. War-
frog, 2000.
_____. Age of Steam [Board Game]. Warfrog,
2002.
Ward, C., E. B. Bauer, and B. B. Smuts. “Partner
Preferences and Asymmetries in Social Play
Among Domestic Dog, Canis Lupus Famil-
iaris, Littermates.” Animal Behavior 76, no. 4
(2008): 1187–1199.
Waskul, D., and M. Lust. “Role-Playing and
Playing Roles: The Person, Player, and Per-
sona in Fantasy Role-Playing.” Symbolic In-
teraction 27, no. 3 (2004): 333–356.
Watson, D. M., and D. B. Croft. “Age-Related
Differences in Playfighting Strategies of Cap-
tive Male Red-Necked Wallabies (Macropus
Rufogriseus Banksianus).” Ethology 102 (1996):
33–346.
Watts, D. G. Railway Rivals [Board Game].
Rostherne Games, 1973.
_____. Dampfross [Board Game]. Schmidt, 1984.
Weber, B. Ido [Board Game]. Goldsieber, 1998.
Weisman, J. “Magic: The Gathering.” In Hobby
Games: The 100 Best, edited by J. Lowder,
192–195. Seattle: Green Ronin, 2007.
Weisman, J., and K. Barrett. Mage Knight [Col-
lectible Miniatures Game]. Wizkids, 2000.
253
Weisman, J., J. Grubb, J. Leitheusser, S. John-
son, and J. Quick. Heroclix [Collectible
Miniatures Game]. Wizkids, 2000.
Weissblum, A., and A. R. Moon. Das Amulett
[Board Game]. Goldsieber, 2001.
_____. New England [Board Game]. Gold-
sieber, 2003.
Wells, H. G. Little Wars; a Game for Boys from
Twelve Years of Age to One Hundred and Fifty
and for That More Intelligent Sort of Girl Who
Likes Boys’ Games and Books. Frank Palmer,
1913.
Weninger, C. “Social Events and Roles in
Magic.” In Gaming as Culture: Essays on Re-
ality, Identity and Experience in Fantasy Games,
edited by J. P. Williams, S. Q. Hendricks, and
W. K. Winkler, 57–76. Jefferson NC: McFar-
land, 2006.
Werneck, T. “The Significance of the Inventor
of a Game as a Shaping Factor for the Recent
Development of a Culture of Games in Ger-
man Speaking Countries.” Paper presented at
the Board Game Studies Colloquia VII,
Philadelphia, 2004.
_____. Email interview, 2008.
Wettering, R. Rette Sich Wer Kann [Board
Game]. Kosmos, 1993.
Wheaton, B. “Researching Gender, Power and
Difference in the Windsurfing Culture.” In
Power Games: A Critical Sociolog y of Sport, ed-
ited by J. P. Sugden & A. Tomlinson, 240–
267. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Whitehill, B. American Boxed Games and Their
Makers: 1822 –1992. Radnor: Wallace-Home-
stead, 1992.
_____. “A Brief History of American Games.”
Toy Shop. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://
www.thebiggamehunter.com/_mgxroot/page_
10768.html, October 1997.
_____. Americanopoly: America as Seen Through
Its Games. Renens: Musé Suisee de Jeu, 2004.
Wick, J. “Wiz War.” In Hobby Games: The 100
Best, edited by J. Lowder, 369–371. Renton:
Green Ronin, 2007.
Wieck, S., C. Earley, and S. Wieck. Mage: The
Ascension [Role-Playing Game]. White Wolf,
1993.
Wiersinga, J., and T. Jannink. Oraklos [Board
Game]. Splotter Spellen, 2002.
Wiersma, R. Gheos [Board Game]. Z-Man
Games, 2006.
Williams, D. Deadlands: Doomtown [Card
Game]. Five Rings Publishing, 1998.
_____. Warlord: Saga of the Storm [Card Game].
Alderac Entertainment Group, 2001.
Williams, D., and R. Lau, R. Legend of the Burn-
ing Sands [Card Game]. Publishing, 1998.
Williams, G. Artifact [Board Game]. Metagam-
ing, 1980.
_____. “Poll: How Many Games Do You Buy a
254 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Month?” Retrieved January 10, 2010, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/270
9296#2709296, 2008.
Williams, J. P. “Consumption and Authenticity
in the Collectible Games Subculture.” In
Gaming as Culture: Essays on Reality, Identity
and Experience in Fantasy Games, edited by J.
P. Williams, S. Q. Hendricks, and W. K. Win-
kler, 77–99. Jefferson NC: McFarland, 2006.
Williams, J. P., S. Q. Hendricks, and W. K.
Winkler, W. K. (eds.). Gaming as Culture: Es-
says on Reality, Identity and Experience in Fan-
tasy Games. Jefferson NC: McFarland, 2006.
Willis, L. Olympica [Board Game]. Metagam-
ing, 1978.
_____. Holy War [Board Game]. Metagaming,
1979.
Wilson, K. Arkham Horror [Board Game]. Fan-
tasy Flight Games, 2005.
_____. Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Board
Game [Board Game]. Fantasy Flight Games,
2010.
Winkler, W. K. “The Business and Culture of
Gaming.” In Gaming as Culture: Essays on Re-
ality, Identity and Experience in Fantasy Games,
edited by J. P. Williams, S. Q. Hendricks, and
W. K. Winkler, 140–153. Jefferson NC: Mc-
Farland, 2006.
Winter, B. James Bond 007 GoldenEye [Card
Game]. Heartbreaker, 1997.
_____. “Re: The Abject Failure That Is Called
‘Gateway.’” Retrieved February 3, 2009, from
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/246
6805#2466805, 2008.
Winters, L., and P. Winters. High Bid [Card
Game]. 3M, 1962.
Wiselely, C. Loopin’ Louie [Board Game]. Mil-
ton Bradley, 1992.
Witt, J. “Re: Giving Up on Games Too Quickly.”
Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://www.
boardgamegeek.com/article/453484#453484,
2005.
Wittig, R. Das Spiel [Board Game]. Edition
Perlhuhn, 1980.
_____. Wir Füttern die Kleinen Nilpferde
[Board Game]. Edition Perlhuhn, 1983.
_____. Drachenlachen [Board Game]. Hexa-
games, 1984.
_____. Müller and Sohn [Board Game]. Franckh-
Kosmos, 1986.
_____. Kula Kula [Board Game]. Blatz, 1993.
_____. Doctor Faust [Board Game]. Blatz, 1994.
Wolf, K.-M. “A Talk with Alex Randolph.” Re-
trieved May 1, 2009, from http://brettboard.
dk/lib/talks/alex1.htm, 1988.
Wolf, M. J. P. “Genre and the Video Game.” In
The Medium of the Video Game, edited by M.
J. P. Wolf, 113–134. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 2002.
Woods, S. “Playing with an Other: Ethics in the
Magic Circle.” Retrieved August 21, 2008,
from http://cybertext.hum.jyu.fi/articles/90.
pdf, 2007.
_____. “Last Man Standing: Risk and Elimina-
tion in Social Game Play.” Leonardo Electronic
Almanac: Special Issue from perthDAC. Re-
trieved August 21, 2009, from http://www.
leonardo.info/LEA/PerthDAC/SWoods_LEA
160203.pdf, 2009.
Wrede, K.-J. Carcassonne [Board Game]. Hans
im Glück, 2000.
_____. Carcassonne — Wirtshäuser und Kathe-
dralen [Board Game Expansion]. Hans im
Glück, 2002.
_____. Carcassonne — Händler and Baumeister
[Board Game Expansion]. Hans im Glück,
2003a.
_____. The Ark of the Covenant [Board Game].
Inspiration Games, 2003b.
_____. Carcassonne — Burgfräulein und Drache
[Board Game Expansion]. Hans im Glück,
2005.
_____. Carcassonne — Der Turm [Board Game
Expansion]. Hans im Glück, 2006.
_____. Carcassonne [Video Game]. Sierra On-
line, 2007a.
_____. Carcassonne — Abtei und Bürgermeister
[Board Game Expansion]. Hans im Glück,
2007b.
_____. Carcassonne — Graf, König und Kon-
sorten [Board Game Expansion]. Hans im
Glück, 2008.
Wrede, K.-J., and L. Colovini. Carcassonne :
Neues Land [Board Game]. Hans im Glück,
2005.
Wrede, K.-J., and R. Knizia. Carcassonne: Die
Burg [Board Game]. Hans im Glück, 2003.
Wu, J. Carcassonne: Fruit Trader [Board Game
Expansion]. Web Published, 2005.
_____. Carcassonne : Treasure Hunt [Board
Game Expansion]. Web Published, 2008.
Wujcik, E. Amber Diceless Role-Playing Game
[Role-playing Game]. Phage Press, 1991.
Wundt, W. Outlines of Psycholog y (translated by
C. H. Judd). Leipzig: Engelmann, 1902.
Xena: Warrior Princess CCG [Card Game].
Wizards of the Coast, 1998.
Yao, A. “Re : It Finally Happened. Someone
Made Fun of Me for Playing Games.” Re-
trieved May 9, 2009, from http://www.board
gamegeek.com/article/2237594#2237594,
2008.
Young, C. “Return of the Heroes Rules Rewrite
v1.0.” Retrieved January 31, 2009, from http://
boardgamegeek.com/file/info/28176, 2007.
Yu, B. Voltage [Card Game]. Mattel, 2006a.
_____. Desert Bazaar [Board Game]. Mattel,
2006b.
Yu, D. “2009 Interview with Tom Werneck.”
Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://opinion
 Bibliography
atedgamers.com/2011/06/20/dale-yu-2009-
interview-with-tom-werneck-spiel-des-jah
res-jury-member-part-1-of-3/, 2011a.
_____. “The Art of Design: Interviews with
Game Designers #7 — Wolfgang  Kramer.”
Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://opinio
natedgamers.com/2011/06/10/the-art-of-desi
gn-interviews-to-game-designers-7-wolfga
ng-kramer/, 2011b.
Zagal, J. P. “A Model to Support the Design of
Multiplayer Games.” Presence (2000): 448–
462.
Zagal, J. P., J. Rick, J., and I. His. “Collaborative
Games: Lessons Learned from Board Games.”
255
Simulation and Gaming 37, no. 1 (2006): 24–
40.
Zamborsky, S. “Re: The Caboose — a Couple of
Questions,” email to author, 2009.
_____. Cleopatra’s Caboose [Board Game]. Z-
Man Games, 2010.
Zappa, L. “Re: Mechanism Based Game Gen-
res?” Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://
www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1491456#14
91456, 2007.
Zoch, K. Bausack [Board Game]. Zoch Verlag,
1987.
_____. Zicke Zacke Hühnerkacke [Board
Game]. Zoch Verlag, 1998.
This page intentionally left blank
 Index

Aarseth, Espen 21, 175, 180 Belk, Lawrence 133, 135

Abbott, Robert 36 Bell, R.C. 8, 17, 20
Acquire 33–36, 58, 88–89, 125 Berg, Richard 67
Adel Verpflichtet 66, 70–71, 77 Berlinger, Yehuda 10, 88, 112, 114
Adkison, Peter 28 Bermuda Triangle 1
Advanced Squad Leader 24 Björk, Staffan 100, 102
Age of Steam 114, 137 Blood Royale 42
Agricola 78, 96, 111, 138 Bluff 69
Alden, Scott 121 Board Game Colloquium 10
Aleknevicus, Greg 3, 21–22, 75, 106, 112, 127, Boardgamegeek 121; demographics 121–126
160 Boardgames Australia 217
Der Alex 54 Bohnanza 92
Alhambra 77, 92, 114 Bontenbal, Rob 69
Alvaro, Gabe 134 Bordenet, Mark 9, 119, 124–125
Aminzadah, Sybille 9 Border Reivers 139
Appelcline, Shannon 93, 111, 159 Borderlands 40, 45
Apples to Apples 181 Borg, Richard 69
area control (game mechanic) 54, 88–89, 93– Bowman, Sarah 9
95, 149, 158–159 Branham, Frank 75
Ariel 36 Breese, Richard 67, 96
Arkham Horror 44 Bridge 15, 179, 201
Arneson, Dave 25–26 Britannia 40–41, 45
As d’Or 52 Broadsides and Boarding Parties 24
Attia, William 78 Bromley, Darwin 73
auction (game mechanic) 43, 69, 76, 88, 90– Buccaneer 1
92, 94, 107, 116, 137, 139, 158–160, 168 Burgess, Eric 88
Auf Achse 64 Busch, Richard 137
Auf Heller und Pfennig 70 By Hook or by Crook see Adel Verpflichtet
Avalon Hill 22–25, 33, 35–41, 43, 45, 65–
66, 70, 72, 138 Caillois, Roger 6, 111–112
AvalonCon 72 Calhamer, Alan 22
Avedon, Elliott 189 Calleja, Gordon 60
The Awful Green Things from Outer Space 45 Campaign 1
Axis and Allies 24, 30, 65, 124, 162 Candyland 18–19
Axis and Allies Miniatures 30 Cannes Games Festival 52
Can’t Stop! 88
Backgammon 16, 33 Carcassonne 76, 78, 89, 95, 102–103, 111, 116,
Balloon Cup 76 137, 143, 155, 179–180
Barbarossa 64 Carpe Astra 139
Barnes, Michael 72, 131 Carver, Derek 3, 41–43, 67
Battle Line see Schotten Totten Cathala, Bruno 91
Bausack 66 Caylus 78, 95–96, 155, 164
Bayerische Spiele-Archiv 59, 61 chance see randomness

257
258 INDEX

cheating 194–196 Drakborgen see DungeonQuest

Chess 1, 16–17, 33, 86, 99, 111, 115, 132, 160, Drang Nach Osten 23
165–166, 177, 181 Draughts 17
China 77 Drunter and Drüber 69
Chinatown 54, 89 Duke, Richard 110
Chinese Checkers 165 Dune 40, 45
Chron X 30 Dungeon! 41
Circus Maximus 43 DungeonQuest 42, 88
La Città 76 Dungeons and Dragons 1–2, 24, 26–27, 41–42,
Civilization (game) 40–41, 43, 45, 65, 67, 83
124–125 Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures 30
classical games 17–18 Dunnigan, James 9, 22–25, 37, 125
Cleopatra’s Caboose 139–140 duration (of games) 115–116
Clifford, Mike 67, 74 Durch die Wüste 74
Clue see Cluedo
Cluedo 9, 18, 36, 49 Eberle, Bill 40
The Coaster proclamation 52–53 Edwards, Ron 27–28
collectible card games 5, 9, 15, 21, 27–32, 77– Eggert, Moritz 56–57, 60, 64, 192
78, 83, 112, 118, 124–125, 134, 156, 200, 18XX games 36, 43, 65, 73, 94, 125, 131
210, 212 Elfenland 74
collection (of games) 131–135 Elfenroads 74
Coloretto 78, 92, 109 Empire Builder 42
Colovini, Leo 76 Entdecker 74, 90
components (of games) 81–82, 161–163 Eon 38–40, 42, 45
Confrontation 9 Epaminondas 36
Conrad, Christwart 54 Eskelinen, Markku 7–8, 104, 174
Consalvo, Mia 3, 195 Essen Feather 51, 55, 72
Cosmic Encounter 2, 38–40, 42, 44–45 Essen Games Fair 34, 49–51, 54–55, 57, 60,
Costikyan, Greg 8–9, 24, 37, 112–113, 162 64, 66–67
Counter (magazine) 11, 74–75, 136 Euphrat und Tigris 72, 74, 89–90, 164
Counter Strike 200 evangelism (of games) 140–144
Cover, Jennifer 9 Executive Decision 33
Cranium 18 Extrablatt 69
Crapuchettes, Dominic 76
Crawford, Chris 6 Facts in Five 33
The Creature That Ate Sheboygan 37 Faidutti, Bruno 3, 75, 91, 96, 109, 118
Crogan, Patrick 9 Fairplay Magazine 50–51
Crude: The Oil Game 37 Family Business 88
Culin, Stewart 8 Fantasy Flight Games 39, 41–43
Czikszentmihalyi, Mihaly 147, 171 Farquhar, David 67
Fenschel, Gerd 76
Dagger, Stuart 3, 34, 49, 67, 74 Feudal 45
Dampfross 64, 73; see also Railway Rivals Fine, Gary 9, 123–125, 129, 134, 136, 145
Days of Decision III 57 Fiske, John 136
Days of Wonder 77, 137, 161 Fist of Dragonstones 91
Delonge, Franz-Benno 58 Der Fliegende Holländer 69
Demo Derby 45 Flinke Pinke 66
Deutscher Spiel Preis 50, 55; winners 66, 69, Focus (game) 64
72–73, 77 Der Förderpreis für Nachwuchsautoren 54
Deutsches Spiele-Archiv 61 Fortune 36
Deutsches Spielmuseum 61 Fossil 75
Diplomacy 9, 22, 35, 37, 88 Fox and Geese 17
Disease 168 Frasca, Gonzalo 7
Dispatcher 37 Freedom in the Galaxy 37
Doctor Who: The Game of Time and Space 42 Freeman, Jon 9
Dominion 2, 78, 137 Freund, Weiland 60
Dorra, Stefan 70 Friese, Friedemann 56
Dover Patrol 40 Full Metal Planète 69
Dragon Dice 29 Funkenschlag 99, 115, 178
Dragonslayer 38 Die Fürsten von Florenz 76, 103, 160
 Index 259

Game Designer’s Workshop (GDW) 22–24 Holzgrafe, Rick 128

The Game of Life 18–19 How, Alan 67, 74
Games and Puzzles (magazine) 35, 64 Huang, Wei-Hwa 201
Games International 11, 65–66, 70 Hughes, Linda 177, 180, 186
The Games Journal 75 Huizinga, Johan 6, 147, 198, 212
Games Magazine 75 Hurter, William 1, 48
Games People Play 64 Huzzey, Richard 44–45, 60
Games Workshop 2, 25, 41–43
Gangsters 45 Illuminati 44, 88
Garfield, Richard 28–29, 199–200, 208, 214 Im Jahr des Drachen 116
Gathering of Friends 69 information (in games) 110–111
Gebrüder Bing 47 Der Inno-Spatz 54
Gehrmann, Peter 71 intellect games 36
The General 65 interaction (in games) 102–104, 155–161
Generic Universal Role Playing System (GURPS) International Gamer’s Award 51–52, 55
25 International Society for Board Game Studies
Gheos 90 8
Gibson Games 40, 66 Internationale Spieltage see Essen Games Fair
Gingold, Chaim 161 Intrige 70
Glenn, Stephen 3, 75–76 It’s Alive! 139
Goa 99, 103, 160
goals 99–102; player relationship to 102–104, Jackson, Steve (UK) 41
173–179, 189–192; social context 179–181 Jackson, Steve (US) 26, 38, 44
Goffman, Erving 168–169, 172, 192, 209, 213 Järvinen, Aki 8, 57, 80–84, 86, 88–89, 98,
Goldrausch 69 100–102, 104, 110
El Grande 72–75, 94–95 Java 90
Gray, Mike 66 Jenkins, Henry 121, 135–136
Green, Mark 64, 67, 70 Jeu de l’année 52
Greenwood, Don 36, 67 Jolly, Tom 44
Grossberg, Lawrence 129 Junta 37, 124
Guidon Games 25 Just Games 64, 67, 70–71
Gunslinger 43, 45 Juul, Jesper 6–7, 124, 149, 152–153, 173–174,
Gygax, Gary 2, 24–26 189–190, 214
Jyhad 29
Halma 17
Hamlin, David 47 Kardinal und König 95
Die Händler von Genua 92, 105–106 Die Kaufleute von Amsterdam 91
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage 138 The Keep 45
Hare and Tortoise 36, 64 Kennerspiel des Jahres 51, 78
Harrigan, Pat 9 Keydom 96
Harris, Lawrence 24 kibitzing 200–204
Harris, Robert 42 Kiesling, Michael 75, 90
Hartland Trefoil 40, 45 Kilgore, Tim 127
Hasbro 19, 56, 59, 77 Kinderspiel des Jahres 51
Heide Smith, Jonas 174–176, 181, 183, 185 King of the Tabletop 45
Heimlich and Co. 65 Kingmaker (game) 36
Heli, Rick 58, 128 kingmaking 204–206
Heroclix 30 Kings and Things 88
Heroscape 30 Kirshenbaum, Matthew 9, 212
Der Herr der Ringe 76 Kittredge, Jack 40
Hertzano, Ephraim 64 Knizia, Reiner 21, 50, 58, 60, 69–71, 74, 76,
Hexagames 37 92, 106–107, 118, 137, 164, 189
Hippodice Autorenwettbewerb 54 Knucklebones (magazine) 11
Hnefatafl 17, 38, 95 Konzack, Lars 126, 129
hobby games: definition 19–20, 30–31; genres Koplow, Kames 37
20–22 Koster, Raph 148, 171
Hodel, Werner 54, 74 Kramer, Wolfgang 53–54, 58, 64, 66, 69,
Hoity Toity see Adel Verpflichtet 74–75, 90, 94
Holopainen, Jussi 100, 102 Kramerleiste 100
Hol’s der Geier 91, 109 Kremlin 43, 65
260 INDEX

Das Labyrinth der Meister 69 motivation (play) 147–149

Lanza, Mario 60 Müller, Reiner 50
Launius, Richard 44 Murray, H.J.R. 8, 17, 20
Lazzaro, Nicole 148, 169, 171 Murray, Janet 8
LeBlanc, Marc 148 Myers, David 21
Lee, Jeremiah 139
Legend of the Five Rings 29 Naval War 88
Levin, Graeme 35 negotiation (game mechanic) 37–39, 42–43,
Levy, Larry 75, 96 45, 54, 69, 70, 88–89, 91–92, 98, 105, 158–
Linie Eins 73 160, 168, 176, 203; see also trading (game
Lion Rampant 27 mechanic)
Livingstone, Ian 41 Niagara 77
Lost Valley 90 Niki Lauda’s Formel Eins 64, 66, 73
Louis XIV 95 Noughts and Crosses 17
Lowder, James 30 Nuclear War 88
ludology 7–8, 104; applied 80 Nuremberg 47
Nuremberg Toy Fair 1, 48, 51–52, 54–55
Die Macher 64–65, 67–71, 74, 115, 138 Nyout 17
Machiavelli 88
Mackay, Daniel 9 Odenhoven, Thomas 54
Mage Knight 30 Ogre 38
Magic: The Gathering 9, 27–29, 118–119, Ohne Furcht und Adel 96
200 Oker, Eugen 34
Magic Realm 38 Olotka, Peter 38, 40
Maier, Otto 48 Onanian, Rick 33
Man to Man 88 Organized Crime 37
Manaclash see Magic: The Gathering Origins 23, 60; Award 51, 72
Mancala 16 Ortega-Grimaldo, Francisco 10
Manhattan 70, 73, 75 Outburst! 18
mass market games 18–19 Outdoor Survival 37
Matchoss, Michel 64 Outpost 88
Mattel 19, 59, 77
Mayfair Games 36, 42–43, 45, 72–73, 75 Pachisi 17
McMulti see Crude: The Oil Game Paglieri, Fabio 190 -192, 198, 209–210
McNeil, Andrew 36 Palesch, Klaus 75
mechanics (game): analysis 84–88; definition Palmer, Nicholas 9, 37
84; examples 88–96; implementation 97– PanzerBlitz 23
99; see also area control; auction; negotia- Parlett, David 8, 16 -21, 36, 64, 161, 174
tion; role selection; set collection; tile place- party games 18–19, 64, 76, 143, 166, 170
ment; trading; worker placement Perren, Jeff 25
Memory (game) 1–2, 48 Perudo see Bluff
Merchant of Venus 45 Petty, Mike 19, 76
Merkle, Marcel Andre Casasola 54, 96 Peurto Rico 77, 96, 99, 111, 114, 160, 164, 203
metagames 199–200, 206–208, 214–215; see Pfeifer, Ray 71–72
also kibitzing; kingmaking Pictionary 18, 166
Metagaming Concepts 38, 44 player enjoyment: of game elements 151–166;
Metro 89 of mechanics 149–151; of play experience
Meyer, Andrea 56 166–169
Middle Earth Collectible Card Game 29 Pokémon 30
Miller, Marshall 144 Poker 207
Milton Bradley 24, 64, 66, 162 Pope, Jackson 139
Mind’s Eye Theatre: The Masquerade 27 Die Pöppel-Revue 49, 51
Mississippi Queen 54, 74 Portobello Market 54
Mixon, Ken 132 Power Grid see Funkenschlag
Modern Art 69–71, 73 The Princes of Florence see Die Fürsten von
Monica, Carol 64 Florenz
Monopoly 9, 18–19, 35–36, 49, 76, 78, 83, Prinz, Peter 56
130, 144 Pritchard, David 8–9
Moon, Alan 65–67, 69, 71–72, 74, 77, 118, Protospiel 76
169–170 Pulsipher, Lewis 3, 40–41, 75, 156–160, 207
 Index 261

Queen’s Necklace 91 Shadowfist 29

Quirks 40, 42, 45 Shadows over Camelot 137
Quo Vadis 69–70, 92 Shark 88
Sherlock Holmes Criminal-Cabinet 64
Ra 77, 92, 106–107, 116, 137 Showbiz 43
Race for the Galaxy 137 Shuffleboard 15
Rail Baron 37 Die Siedler von Catan 10, 37, 46, 58, 71–74,
Railroad Tycoon 137 78–79, 91, 93, 97–99, 112, 143–144, 159,
Railway Rivals 42–43, 64–65 164
Randolph, Alex 33–35, 50, 53–54, 64, Siggins, Mike 16, 66–68, 71, 74
91 Sigma File 36
randomness 111–113, 164–166 Simonsen, Redmond 22
Ravensburger 1, 48–49, 64, 70 Simulation Publications Incorporated (SPI)
Razzia! 107 22–24, 37–38, 125
rec.games.board 11, 67, 70, 72 6-Nimmt 69, 109
replayability 152–153 6-Tage Rennen 67
Rett Sich Wer Kann 70 Sniderman, Stephen 208
Rio Grande Games 75, 77 Solitander, Nico 143
Risk 2, 38, 57, 77–78, 112, 165 Solko, Derk 3, 121, 125, 156
Roads and Boats 93, 115 Solomon, Eric 36
Roberts, Charles S. 22 Spanish Main 45
Roborally 28 Spears Games 35
role-playing games 2, 5, 9, 15, 21, 24–28, 30– Speier, Matthew 208
32, 41–42, 83, 112–113, 123–126, 129, 136, Speilerei 54
152, 174, 210–212 Spellfire 29
role selection (game mechanic) 88, 95–96, Spiel der Spiele 52
158, 164 Spiel des Jahres 49, 50–52, 61; winners 64,
Rosen, Tom 213–214 66, 69–79, 138
Rosenberg, Uwe 78 Spielbox 49–50
Rösner, Horst-Rainer 74 Spieleautorentreffen 53–54
rulesets 82–84 Spieleautorenzunft 54
Rummikub 64 Spielfrieks 11, 75
Russell, Scott 141 Squad Leader 23
Star Trek: The Next Generation CCG 29
Sackson, Sid 33–35, 45, 50, 58, 64, 89, 118 Star Wars CCG 30, 119
Sagaland 64 Star Wars Miniatures 30
St. Laurent, James 37 Starforce 37
Salen, Katie 8, 82, 84, 113, 165, 189 Stebbins, Richard 15
San Juan 96 Stellar Conquest 124
Sarrett, Peter 70 Die Sternenfahrer von Catan 115
Sauer, Nick 88 Stone Age 92, 96
Die Säulen der Erde 96 Stratego 40
Scattergories 33, 70 strategy 153–155
Schacht, Michael 77, 91 Strateg y and Tactics (magazine) 22, 24,
Schell, Jesse 161 125
Schlickbernd, Jennifer 68 Suits, Bernard 177–178, 209, 213
Schloesser, Greg 51, 72, 75 Sumo 11, 67–71, 74–75, 133, 136
Schmidt Spiele 34 Sutton Smith, Brian 189, 200
Schmiel, Karl-Heinz 64, 69, 74, 138 Svitavsky, William 126
Schotten Totten 137 Swords and Sorcery 38
Schuco 47
Schwarz, Helmut 47 Taboo 18
Scotland Yard 64 Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) 24, 29, 38, 41–
Scrabble 17–18, 35–36, 49, 89 42
self-handicapping 181–186 tactics 153–155
set collection (game mechanic) 77, 92–93, 96, Tactics (game) 22
107, 158 Tadsch Mahal 76, 116
The Settlers of Catan see Die Siedler van Catan Tal der Könige 71
Seyfarth, Andreas 70, 77 Tales of the Arabian Nights 44
Seyfarth, Karen 77 Talisman 2, 42–43, 88
262 INDEX

Taluva 90 Verräter 96
Task Force Games 38 Das Verrückte Labyrinth 69
Teuber, Klaus 58, 64, 66, 69, 71–72, 74, 77, Villa Paletti 77
90, 115 Vino 54
theme 104–107, 163–164; analysis 107– Vygotsky, Lev 209
110
Thornquist, Rick 60 Waddingtons 1, 35
Thoughtwave 36 Walker, Brian 57, 65–67
3M games 33–35, 37, 45, 58 War in Europe 23
Thurn und Taxis 77 War in the East 23
Ticket to Ride 77, 102, 188 War in the West 23
Tidwell, Ken 70–72 Wardrup-Fruin, Noah 9
Tikal 75, 86–87, 95, 178 Wargames 5, 9, 15, 21–25, 32, 35, 38, 41, 56–
tile placement (game mechanic) 33, 36, 57, 83, 112–113, 118, 136, 156, 212
70, 76, 85–86, 88–90, 149, 158–159, Warhammer 25
164 Warrior Knights 42
Timberland 71 Watts, David 42, 64
Titan 38, 138 Weninger, Celia 200
Toncar, Walter 67 Werneck, Tom 50, 52, 59
Torres 75, 113 West End Games 44
Totopoly 1 Wettering, Ronald 70
trading (game mechanic) 40, 72, 88–89, 91– White Wind 69, 71, 74
92, 98, 105, 112, 130, 158–160, 161; see also White Wolf 27
negotiation (game mechanic) Whitehill, Bruce 3, 8
Tresham, Francis 36, 40–41, 43, 45, 67 Wildlife Adventure 70
A Trip Around the World 48 Williams, J. Patrick 134
Trivial Pursuit 18 Wits and Wagers 76
Tsao, Vincent 37 Wittig, Reinhold 53
Tummelson, Jay 73, 75 Wiz War 44, 88
TV Wars 88 Wizards of the Coast 28–29, 124
Twixt 17, 33 Wolfe, Mark J.P. 21
Tycoon 74 worker placement (game mechanic) 88, 92,
Tyranno Ex 70 95–96, 158–159

Überplay 77 Yu-Gi-Oh! 30
Uhl, Mick 36
Ulrich, Richard 73, 76, 94 Z-Man Games 44, 77, 138–139
Um Reifenbreite 69 Zagal, Jose 167–168
Union Pacific 114 Zamborsky, Steve 3, 139
Up Front 88 Zappa, Leo 118
Zick Zacke Hühnerkacke 66
Valley Games 38, 65, 138 Zimmerman, Eric 8, 82, 84, 113, 165, 189
Valley of the Four Winds 41 Zombies in My Pocket 139
Vampire: The Masquerade 27 Zooloretto 77
Vasey, Charles 67, 133 Zug um Zug see Ticket to Ride
Verdict 37